David Sanger and Eric Schmitt,"U.S. Cyberweapons, Used Against Iran and North Korea, Are a Disappointment Against ISIS": The New York Times Exposes Israel's Cyber Hack

Tweet

In a New York Times article entitled "U.S. Cyberweapons, Used Against Iran and North Korea, Are a Disappointment Against ISIS," David Sanger and Eric Schmitt write:

"Even one of the rare successes against the Islamic State belongs at least in part to Israel, which was America’s partner in the attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Top Israeli cyberoperators penetrated a small cell of extremist bombmakers in Syria months ago, the officials said. That was how the United States learned that the terrorist group was working to make explosives that fooled airport X-ray machines and other screening by looking exactly like batteries for laptop computers.

The intelligence was so exquisite that it enabled the United States to understand how the weapons could be detonated, according to two American officials familiar with the operation. The information helped prompt a ban in March on large electronic devices in carry-on luggage on flights from 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries to the United States and Britain."

This was the intel that was leaked by Donald Trump to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the US during an Oval Office meeting last month. Israel tried to mitigate the damage by claiming that the intel was HUMINT and that the agent's life had been endangered, but ISIS now knows for certain that the intel was SIGINT, i.e. a cyber hack.

Has an important window into ISIS terror operations been hermetically shut? Have innocent lives been compromised as a consequence? I don't know the answer. I suggest you ask Donald Trump, the Times, or better still, the "officials" who leaked this info to Sanger and Schmitt.

David Sanger, "John Kerry, in a Final, Pointed Plea, Will Outline a Vision of Mideast Peace": Blind Man's Bluff

Tweet

In a myopic New York Times article entitled "John Kerry, in a Final, Pointed Plea, Will Outline a Vision of Mideast Peace," David Sanger writes of John Kerry's speech today, which is intended "to shape the outlines of a Middle East peace deal":

"The decision to go ahead with his speech in the waning days of the administration is characteristic of Mr. Kerry, a serial negotiator who over the past four years traveled the world on three major missions: an Israeli-Palestinian accord, the Iranian nuclear accord, and a cease-fire and political accord for Syria. He will leave office on Jan. 20 having achieved the nuclear deal, but having tried and failed on the other two."

Kerry's nuclear deal with Iran was an achievement? Oh really. As reported by Jenna Lifhits in a December 25, 2016 Weekly Standard article entitled "U.N. Agency Publishes Secret Iran Deal Docs On Exemptions Obama Admin Dismissed":

"Iran was given secret exemptions allowing the country to exceed restrictions set out by the landmark nuclear deal inked last year, some of which were made public this week by the United Nations nuclear watchdog and others that are likely still being withheld, according to diplomatic sources and a top nuclear expert who spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Friday posted documents revealing that Iran had been given exemptions in January that permit the country to stockpile uranium in excess of the 300 kilogram limit set by the nuclear deal, experts said. The agreements had been kept secret for almost a year, but recent reports indicated that the Trump administration intended to make them public."

In fact Kerry's unsigned Swiss cheese arrangement with Iran, negotiated in Geneva and shot through with holes, was anything but an achievement.

Sanger goes on to say concerning last week's Security Council resolution denouncing Israeli West Bank settlements:

"'We did not discuss the substance of the resolution at any time with the United States,' Gerard van Bohemen, New Zealand’s ambassador to the United Nations, said later, disputing Mr. Netanyahu’s account that the vote was orchestrated in Washington. 'We did not know how the United States would vote.'

The surprise was palpable. Román Oyarzun Marchesi of Spain, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council, asked for a show of hands in support of the resolution: 14 hands went up. He asked for a show of hands against: zero hands went up. A gasp was heard in the Council chamber. It meant that the United States, which can unilaterally veto a resolution as a permanent member of the Security Council, had not done so."

The surprise was "palpable"? Yeah, right. As reported today in a Times of Israel article entitled "Israel: US pressured Ukraine to support anti-settlement resolution":

"An Israeli official said Wednesday that highest-level US administration officials phoned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko directly to pressure him to support the United Nations Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements.

'Either Obama or Biden spoke to Poroshenko about the matter,' a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel, elaborating on Israel’s claims that the US worked behind the scenes to bolster the resolution and to ensure that it was supported by all the other countries on the council.

According to one highly placed Israeli official who spoke to Tablet Magazine, it was Biden who personally intervened to ensure that Ukraine would support the resolution. 'Did Biden put pressure on the Ukrainians? Categorically yes,' said a source within the Israeli government. 'That Biden told them to do it is 1000% true,' he said."

Nauseating. Enough said.

David Sanger, "Iran Sticks to Terms of Nuclear Deal, but Defies the U.S. in Other Ways": A Fool's Paradise

Tweet

In a New York Times article entitled "Iran Sticks to Terms of Nuclear Deal, but Defies the U.S. in Other Ways," David E. Sanger observes that although Iran appears to be abiding by the "strict parameters" of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei, there are no celebrations at the White House. Sanger writes:

"Tehran is still sending its forces to support President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and to gain influence in Iraq, and now has begun to honor its fallen soldiers there as heroes. Taking advantage of a newly worded United Nations resolution that merely 'calls upon' Iran to limit its missile testing, it has kept up a steady pace of tests, with more and more capable weaponry. The United States has protested, but has recognized that Russia and China would never permit the imposition of sanctions."

Stated otherwise re missile testing, Obama's deal permits unimpeded work on the delivery systems for Iran's future atomic weapons.

And then there was the warning from Germany earlier this month that Iran continues to seek components for its nuclear weapons program. As noted by Sanger:

"While Iran has not seriously tested the limits of the agreement, it made an effort, several months ago, to purchase carbon fiber from Germany, a high-technology product used in the production of advanced rotors for centrifuges that purify uranium."

Why the need for advanced rotors for centrifuges? Simple. As reported by the influential Iranian newspaper Kayhan, Iranian President Rouhani declared yesterday:

"If, some day, the P5+1 refuses to fulfill its commitments, we will be completely prepared, and, in terms of nuclear capabilities, we are at such a level so as to be able to reach our desired stage in a short period of time."

Or in other words, Iran's antiquated centrifuges have indeed been dismantled; however, Rouhani and friends are already making preparations to obtain the next generation of centrifuges, which enrich uranium more than 20 times faster.

Sanger cites Israeli satisfaction with the deal:

"By late January, even Israel’s top military officer said he was impressed. 'The deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel’s existence for the foreseeable future,' Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, told a conference in Tel Aviv, 'and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term.'"

Well, not exactly. On July 1, the deputy commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, threatened to "annihilate" Israel by launching the more than 100,000 missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yes, Israel continues to face an existential threat, although for the time being, Hezbollah is preoccupied fighting rebel Sunni forces in Syria and cannot afford a two-front war.

Moreover, Iranian commanders have taken up positions opposite the Israel Defense Forces in the Golan Heights. In a July 8 DEBKAfile article entitled "Iranians & Walid suicide units on Golan border," we learn:

"Whereas Hizballah reported on July 5 that Israeli helicopters had attacked Syrian army positions near the Golan town of Quneitra, in fact, one of the two Israeli 'Tamuz' IDF rockets fired on July 4, in response to stray cross-border Syrian army mortar shells, struck the Syrian Ministry of Finance building near Quneitra, which housed Iranian Guards and Hizballah regional headquarters. An unknown number of Iranian officers were killed as a result."

The Middle East is more peaceful and secure as a consequence of Obama's deal with Khamenei? In fact, Obama and Kerry are living in a fool's paradise. Obama's agreement with Khamenei isn't worth the paper it wasn't written on. 

Obama's Foreign Policy Leaves the Middle East in Shambles: The End of Kumbaya Diplomacy

Tweet

Perhaps you recall how The Washington Post's David Ignatius declared on March 31, 2015 that "the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever." Well today, in a must-read New York Times article entitled "Iran’s Missile Tests Remind the U.S. That Hostilities Have Not Ended," Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger inform us:

"[T]he past few days have been full of sobering reminders that the grander objective of [the nuclear accord with Iran] — some gradual steps toward an era of wary cooperation, or at least a cessation of hostilities between Washington and Tehran — remains a long way away.

Just last week, the Republican-led Congress inserted new rules into the budget signed by Mr. Obama that were clearly intended to discourage foreigners from doing business with Tehran. Then on Saturday, the Iranian Navy harassed an American aircraft carrier and a French frigate in the Strait of Hormuz, launching rockets that passed within 1,500 yards of the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman. It seemed an act somewhere between recklessness and outright aggression.

So much for détente."

Or more to the point, so much for Obama's unsigned "legacy-creating" nuclear deal with Khamenei. There is no way that Tehran will placidly accept new American sanctions stemming from Iran's recent ballistic missile tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, over at The Washington Post, Liz Sly has written an equally important article entitled "On the front lines of the war against the Islamic State, a tangled web," which observes:

"[T]he Islamic State is but one of a multitude of groups competing for territory and dominance over the collapsed nation states of Iraq and Syria — a symptom as much as a cause of the scramble for power unleashed by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the 2011 revolt in Syria.

The Islamic State may or may not be vanquished soon — and a string of defeats inflicted in recent months in northeastern Syria, northern Iraq and most recently Ramadi have raised hopes that its demise may be closer than had been thought.

But already it is becoming clear that victory over the militants won’t end the bloodshed in the region, said Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

'There is little thought being given to the morning after, and the morning after is going to be as bloody, as chaotic and as destabilizing as the situation we are seeing now,' he said. 'The heart of the Middle East has changed. The fragile state system is no longer there.'"

Indeed, Syria and Iraq were never nation-states, but rather entities randomly carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France.

Moreover, it is time for the US to prepare Ankara for an independent Kurdistan, notwithstanding the deep-seated enmity of Erdogan and friends to Turkey's Kurdish minority. The Middle East's 30 million Kurds, long friendly to America, deserve their freedom.

David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon, "Future Risks of an Iran Nuclear Deal": Serious Reporting From The New York Times

Tweet

If you wondered whether The New York Times is capable of serious reporting concerning Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, beyond the insipid cheer leading that has characterized the newspaper's op-ed page, David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon have provided the answer. In a Times article entitled "Future Risks of an Iran Nuclear Deal," Sanger and Gordon acknowledge:

"Even some of the most enthusiastic backers of the agreement, reached by six world powers with Iran, say they fear Mr. Obama has oversold some of the accord’s virtues as he asserts that it would 'block' all pathways to a nuclear weapon.
A more accurate description is that the agreement is likely to delay Iran’s program for a decade and a half — just as sanctions and sabotage have slowed Iran in recent years. The administration’s case essentially is that the benefits over the next 15 years overwhelmingly justify the longer-term risks of what comes after.

. . . .

[A]fter 15 years, Iran would be allowed to produce reactor-grade fuel on an industrial scale using far more advanced centrifuges. That may mean that the warning time if Iran decided to race for a bomb would shrink to weeks, according to a recent Brookings Institution analysis by Robert J. Einhorn, a former member of the American negotiating team.

Critics say that by that time, Iran’s economy would be stronger, as would its ability to withstand economic sanctions, and its nuclear installations probably would be better protected by air defense systems, which Iran is expected to buy from Russia."

Sanger and Gordon proceed to observe:

"Under restrictions imposed by the accord, Iran would need a full year to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb; currently that timeline is two or three months, according to American intelligence agencies. But starting at year 10, that 'breakout time' would begin to shrink again, as Iran gets more centrifuges into operation."

However, Israeli intelligence believes that breakout time under the agreement would be significantly shorter, and The Institute for Science and International Security recently concluded that breakout time under the deal could be as short as seven months if advanced IR-2m centrifuges are re-installed during a breakout.

Sanger and Gordon go on to say:

"Some backers of the agreement are urging the White House and Congress to do more. Mr. [Adam] Schiff and Mr. [Dennis] Ross [who has not decided if he backs the deal] suggested in interviews that the United States should put Iran on notice that its production of highly enriched uranium after the main provisions of the accord expire would be taken by American officials as an indication that Iran has decided to pursue nuclear weapons — and could trigger an American military strike.

And both said the United States should also be prepared to provide bunker-busting bombs to Israel to deter Iran from trying to shield illicit nuclear work underground. Others have called for a long-term congressional 'authorization to use military force' if Iran violated the accord.

Mr. Ross has also urged the White House to specify the penalties for smaller violations of the accord, an idea Mr. Obama rejected in his letter, saying he wanted to maintain 'flexibility' to decide what responses might be needed."

"Trigger an American military strike"? "Authorization to use military force"? "Specify penalties for smaller violations"? Sorry, but none of these things are going to happen. Obama, who learned how awkward "red lines" can prove after threatening Assad re the use of chemical weapons, has no intention of acting forcefully so near the end of his second term, and certainly will not allow himself to be painted into another ugly corner.

Sanger and Gordon further observe regarding the "'24-day' rule for resolving disputes if Iran refuses to give inspectors access to a suspicious site — another measure that expires after 15 years," that "reimposing sanctions could be politically challenging" and that "some experts say that Iran could cover up smaller-scale illicit activities [within the 24-day time frame], including work on the specialized high-explosives that might serve as a trigger in a nuclear bomb."

Regrettably, Sanger and Gordon do not mention Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's red line: "I have already asserted that no inspection of military sites can ever be done." Or stated otherwise, the IAEA is free to look where we're not engaged in illicit activities, provided we receive a 24-day warning; however, all other locations are off limits.

Bottom line, Gordon and Sanger are telling us that notwithstanding everything that Obama and friends are busy telling us, Iran can, within weeks, build a nuclear arsenal after 15 years - if it doesn't find a way to cheat, e.g., work out of North Korea, long before then.

How reassuring . . .

Fareed Zakaria to CNN's Erin Burnett: Obama "Desperately" Wants a Deal With Iran

Tweet


It just gets more and more sickening: In a CNN interview with Erin Burnett, Obama confidante Fareed Zakaria declared in response to the question, "Does [Obama] want this [nuclear deal] too much?”:

"You know, I think that there is an element of him clearly that desperately wants to bring Iran in from the cold."

Indeed, at a time when millions of Iranians are taking to the streets and crying "Death to America" and when it has just become known that Iran is illegally seeking to obtain nuclear and missile technology in Germany, Obama is surrendering to Khamenei on almost every major sticking point to get a deal done. "No deal is better than a bad deal"? "Anytime, anywhere" inspections? If Iran violates the agreement, sanctions will "snap-back"? All of these avowals meant for mass consumption by an ignorant public have fallen by the wayside.

Only US secretary of defense, Ashton B. Carter, seems to be concerned by Obama's concessions. As reported by Michael R. Gordon and David E. Sanger in a New York Times article entitled "A Final Hurdle in Iran Talks Deals With Conventional, Not Nuclear, Arms":

"“The reason that we want to stop Iran from having an I.C.B.M. program is that the ‘I’ in I.C.B.M. stands for ‘intercontinental,’ which means having the capability of flying from Iran to the United States,” [Ashton Carter] said, adding with a bit of understatement, “We don’t want that.”"

The US doesn't "want that," but it is perfectly acceptable for Israel to be facing a barrage of shorter-range missiles with nuclear warheads in a minimum of ten years (considerably less time if Iran violates the agreement - which it will)?

But why should Obama care if, going ahead, it doesn't interfere with his golf game?

The New York Times, "Talks on Iran Nuclear Deal Are Extended Once Again": A Shocking Revelation From Vienna

Tweet


And you thought that John ("Assad is a dear friend") Kerry and Wendy (the amazing social worker who aced the North Korean nuclear negotiations) Sherman have nothing new to tell us from Vienna? Guess again. In a New York Times article entitled "Talks on Iran Nuclear Deal Are Extended Once Again" by Michael R. Gordon and David E. Sanger, we learn of new developments. Observing that "A deadline is a deadline, except, it seems, at the Iran nuclear negotiations," Gordon and Sanger go on to say:

"To sustain itself during its marathon meetings, the United States negotiating team has since the beginning of June consumed at least 10 pounds of Twizzlers, 30 pounds of mixed nuts and dried fruit, 20 pounds of string cheese and more than 200 Rice Krispie Treats, according to its informal count."

Well done, Wendy! Keep at it, John! A few more Twizzlers and a few more concessions, and you might yet sow the seeds of a second Holocaust.

New York Times Editorial, "Ayatollah Khamenei’s Fateful Choice": Obama's Chickens Come Home to Roost

Tweet

Do you remember how the White House and the State Department used to tell us regarding a nuclear arrangement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, "No deal is better than a bad deal" and "All options are on the table"? Well, we don't hear that anymore. Instead, in the face of Supreme Leader Khamenei's intransigence and given Obama's desperate need for a presidential legacy, the operative language guiding Wendy Sherman, a social worker turned nuclear negotiator who was responsible in large part for the disastrous nuclear arrangement with North Korea, has become, "Any deal is better than no deal, because, quite frankly, all options are off the table."

Well, given Obama's endless string of concessions at the P5+1 talks with Tehran in Geneva, optimism concerning the finalization of a deal with Iran around the June 30 deadline had been rampant. At least, until the Iranian parliament placed additional demands upon the country's negotiators to the accompaniment of cries of "Death to America" on Sunday, and until Khamenei also placed Iranian military sites off limits to inspections on Tuesday, i.e. you can conduct your searches where we are not developing an atomic bomb, but you can't look where we are undertaking such activity.

The New York Times, also known as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, has reacted with alarm to Khamenei's latest set of demands. In an editorial entitled "Ayatollah Khamenei’s Fateful Choice," the Times declares:

"As the negotiations approach the deadline, some in the United States are also intensifying their criticism against the deal. One goal of the agreement is to ensure that the time it will take Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb is increased from three months now to at least 12 months. Some critics argue the deal does not do that, in part because Iran will retain a small enrichment program and thousands of centrifuges, though many leading technical experts say it does."

Here, the Times is responding to Professor Alan J. Kuperman's guest op-ed entitled "The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw," which stated that the agreement being negotiated by Sherman and friends would only lengthen Iran's breakout time from "a little under two months" to three months. 

The Times editorial continues:

"Other critics accuse the Obama administration of dropping a demand that Iran disclose full details of its past efforts to pursue a nuclear weapon. But the April framework specifies that Iran address those concerns, and Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters on June 16 that Iran would have to answer outstanding questions about the weapons program before receiving significant sanctions relief under any deal.

Compromises are part of any negotiation. Any agreement can really be judged only when the text is signed and details are made public. The April framework accord was a solid basis on which to build a credible final deal. Ayatollah Khamenei must decide whether he and his government can live with the economic and political consequences if he sabotages this deal."

Apparently, the Times got wind of the fact that Obama's non-negotiable "demand that Iran disclose full details of its past efforts to pursue a nuclear weapon" has been dropped by Sherman in order to reach a compromise. More to the point, social worker Sherman is learning that the April framework accord was not a solid basis on which to build a credible final deal. Rather, it was an agreement to agree, which even Obama, who once studied contract law, can tell you is not binding.

And now, much to the chagrin of the West Wing, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has thrown a new monkey wrench into efforts to sign off on a deal with Iran. As stated by David Sanger in a New York Times article entitled "Ex-Advisers Warn Obama That Iran Nuclear Deal ‘May Fall Short’ of Standards," the June 24 "Public Statement on U.S. Policy Toward the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Endorsed by a Bipartisan Group of American Diplomats, Legislators, Policymakers, and Experts" calls into question the underlying substance of Obama's would-be agreement with the mullahs. Sanger writes:

"Five former members of President Obama’s inner circle of Iran advisers have written an open letter expressing concern that a pending accord to stem Iran’s nuclear program “may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement” and laying out a series of minimum requirements that Iran must agree to in coming days for them to support a final deal.

Several of the senior officials said the letter was prompted by concern that Mr. Obama’s negotiators were headed toward concessions that would weaken international inspection of Iran’s facilities, back away from forcing Tehran to reveal its suspected past work on weapons, and allow Iranian research and development that would put it on a course to resuming intensive production of nuclear fuel as soon as the accord expires.

The public nature of the announcement by some of Mr. Obama’s best-known former advisers, all of whom had central roles in the diplomatic, intelligence and military efforts to counter Iran’s program, adds to the challenge facing Secretary of State John Kerry as the negotiations head toward a deadline of next Tuesday."

Not a "good" agreement? In fact, that depends upon whether some narcissist's legacy is more important than a future nuclear holocaust, which could reach American shores, owing to a deal which also does not seek to prevent Iran from developing ICBMs.

David Sanger and William Broad, "Iran’s Nuclear Stockpile Grows, Complicating Negotiations": Does Obama Suffer From Dementia?

In a New York Times article entitled "Iran’s Nuclear Stockpile Grows, Complicating Negotiations," David E. Sanger and William J. Broad begin by informing us:

"With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been 'frozen' during that period.

But Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why."

Yup, the Iranian nuclear weapons development program has purportedly been frozen, and the West purportedly has effective monitoring capabilities in place, but Western officials and experts cannot comprehend why Iranian stockpiles of nuclear fuel are growing? Apparently, Arnold, my 4-year-old Anatolian shepherd, is smarter than all of these officials and experts.

Sanger and Broad go on to say:

"The extent to which Iran’s stockpile has increased was documented in a report issued Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization that monitors compliance with nuclear treaties. The agency’s inspectors, who have had almost daily access to most of Iran’s nuclear production facilities, reported finding no evidence that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon, and said Tehran had halted work on facilities that could have given it bomb-making capabilities."

Not to worry: The feverish work toward bomb-making capabilities will come only after the sanctions are lifted and Iran is given its $50 billion bonus for signing an agreement with the P5+1.

More mendacity from Obama? Do you remember how Obama reassured Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that the US "won’t take any options off the table, including military action" to ensure that Khamenei does not obtain atomic weapons? Well, yesterday, in an interview with Israel's Channel 2 News, Obama removed the military option from the table. Who would have ever imagined?

You see, the forthcoming deal with Iran is all part of Obama's legacy. As reported today by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "Obama, musing on legacy, hopes he’ll be remembered ‘fondly’" by Jim Kuhnhenn, Obama, who has studiously avoided use of the L-word, let his guard down in a discussion with "young Southeast Asian leaders":

"Asked how he would want the world to remember him, he replied grinning, 'Fondly, I hope.'

At first he seemed ready to demur on the broader question, saying, 'I have a lot of work still to do before I start looking backward.'

But then he plunged forward. 'Obviously there are things that I’ve been proud of,' he said.

He first cited the economic crisis he faced upon assuming office in 2009. 'It was hard, but we ended up avoiding a terrible depression,' he said. And he credited US leadership, in part, for helping avoid a worse international economic crisis.

'That’s an important legacy for me,' he said.

He highlighted 'the work that I’ve done to provide health insurance' as one that was in line with his major governing principles.

But his most detailed view of his legacy was on foreign policy, arguing that the US has seen a reversal in its international standing. 'Today, the US is the most respected country on earth,' he said."

"Today, the US is the most respected country on earth"? Who told this to the president? Valerie Jarrett?

Okay, we've known for some time that Obama has a severe narcissistic personality disorder, but does he also suffer from dementia?

Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin Gives the Lie to Obama's "Snapback" Mechanism

"In return for Iran's actions, the international community, including the United States, has agreed to provide Iran with phased relief from certain sanctions. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place."

- President Obama, Weekly Presidential Address, April 4, 2015

Ah yes, when Iran violates its agreement with the P5+1, the sanctions regime will snap back into place. But wait! Yesterday, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin informed Bloomberg News:

"'There can be no automaticity, none whatsoever' in reimposing UN sanctions if Iran violates the terms of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Bloomberg News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate."

Do you think this will stop Obama from signing a deal with Khamenei. Heck no! He already got away with "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them." Why shouldn't he get away with this cock-and-bull story, too?

Meanwhile as reported Wednesday by David Sanger of The New York Times in an article entitled "Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability":

"Now, as [Obama]gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White House on Wednesday and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence: Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.

'We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,' one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message."

Is there a way out of this ugly mess concocted by Obama and his playmates? Not that I know.

David Brooks, "The Revolution Lives!": The "Framework" Is Crumbling!

Obama's so-called "framework understanding" with Iran is crumbling. On Thursday, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei declared that "sanctions should be lifted completely, on the very day of the deal," and inspection of Iranian military bases would not be tolerated as part of any final agreement. Regarding Khamenei's refusal to allow inspection of military bases, a lead New York Times article entitled "Iranian Leader Says Sanctions Must Lift When Deal Is Signed" by Thomas Erdbrink and David E. Sanger, today states:

"While Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have said the inspection requirements they have negotiated would be among the most intrusive in history, they have not said whether they would extend to military sites. Several of the sites the United States is most concerned about in Iran are on military bases, including Fordo. Inspectors have visited the site regularly, and the atomic energy agency has, periodically, been allowed onto other military bases."

Well, I sent an email to David Sanger and asked:

"Why do you choose not to make reference to Iran's Parchin military base? As you know, the IAEA has been seeking access to Parchin since 2005, but has been refused entry."

Iran is suspected of testing atomic bomb components at Parchin over the past several years, and I await Sanger's reply.

And now, David Brooks has stepped into the fray. In a Times op-ed entitled "The Revolution Lives!, Brooks begins by observing, "President Obama’s deal with Iran is really a giant gamble on the nature of the Iranian regime." Observing that "the West wants a deal more than Khamenei does" and "[t]hat imbalance explains why Western negotiators had to give away so many of their original demands," Brooks concludes:

"If Iran still has revolutionary intent, then no amount of treaty subtlety will enforce this deal. Iran will begin subtly subverting any agreement. It will continue to work on its advanced nuclear technology even during the agreement. It will inevitably use nuclear weaponry, or even the threat of eventual nuclear weaponry, to advance its apocalyptic interests. Every other regional power will prepare for the worst, and we’ll get a pseudo-nuclear-arms race in a region of disintegrating nation-states.

. . . .

At some point, there has to be a scintilla of evidence that Iran wants to change. Khamenei’s speech offers none. Negotiating an arms treaty with Brezhnev and Gorbachev was one thing. But with this guy? Good luck with that."

"Negotiating" with Khamenei. In fact, Obama's "fire sale" tactics with Khamenei, pursuant to which everything effectively is being given away, only targets one objective: the creation of a legacy for a president consumed by narcissism.

[See also: "Farred Zakaria, "Is Iran rational?": Which Other Country Hangs Homosexuals?"]

Ben Rhodes: A Deal With Iran Is Healthcare for Obama

In a lead New York Times article entitled "U.N. Says Iran Is Silent on Efforts for a Bomb" by David E. Sanger, we are told:

"At a moment when American negotiators say they see some signs of movement on the part of Iran toward a broad nuclear deal with the United States, the head of the United Nations nuclear inspection organization declared Friday that Iran had stopped answering the agency’s questions about suspected past efforts to design the components of a bomb."

This comes at a time when we are learning from The Washington Free Beacon in an article entitled "The Coming Détente with Iran" by Matthew Continetti that Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, declared in January:

"Bottom line is this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically, certainly since President Obama came to office, and probably since the beginning of the Iraq war. So no small opportunity, this is a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

This comes at a time when Iran's is executing its citizens at a record rate. As reported by in an October 30, 2014 International Business Times article by Alessandria Masi entitled "Iran Execution Rate: Number Of Iran Executions Higher Under President Hassan Rouhani Than Ahmadinejad":

"Iranian President Hassan Rouhani promised to fix the country’s tarnished human rights record when he took office last August, but Iran has since seen an alarming rise in executions. The latest death by hanging made headlines around the world when Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed for murdering former intelligence officer Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, who had tried to rape her.

Jabbari's former lawyer accused Iran of torturing her, keeping her in solitary confinement and unfairly sentencing her to death. Mohammad Mostafaei made his accusations at a United Nations panel Thursday, just a day before Iran has to defend its human rights record at the U.N.’s annual Universal Periodic Review (UPR). When the 26-year-old woman was executed Saturday, she became the 586th person to die at the hands of the Iranian government this year.

There have been 70 more executions so far in 2014 than in the same time frame last year. During Rouhani’s first year in office, 773 people were executed, compared to 530 people during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last year in office, according to data from the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center."

This comes at a time when Jeffrey Goldberg has revealed in a recent Atlantic article entitled "The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here":

"The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. 'The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,' this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.

. . . .

[Another senior Obama] official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. 'It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.'"

[Has anyone asked John Kerry or Ben Rhodes if they know the identity of the senior official in the Obama administration who labeled Netanyahu a "chickenshit"?]

The Obama administration is proud that it prevented Israel from destroying Iran's nuclear weapons development facilities, while at the same time launching a demeaning attack against Israel's prime minister? Of course, Obama is now in his second and final term of office, and today there are "no holds barred" when it comes to undermining Israel. Anyone without blinders should have seen this coming.

Obama Seeks to Lift Sanctions on Iran Without Congressional Approval: You Didn't See This Coming?

As reported by David Sanger in a New York Times article entitled "Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress";

"No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it."

Surprise, surprise, surprise! Did anyone not see this coming?

Yet, notwithstanding the "red line" he fixed regarding use of chemical weapons against civilians by Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad, Obama chose to avoid having to take action against Assad by turning to Congress for approval.

Yes, I think I am going to be ill.

Thomas Friedman, "Oh, Brother! Big Brother Is Back": Obama Throws Israel Under the Bus

Yesterday, Obama threw Israel under the bus.

Obama's agreement with Khamenei provides significant sanctions relief to Iran, but does not roll back Iran's nuclear weapons development program. As acknowledged by David Sanger of The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/progress-if-modest-in-holding-back-irans-nuclear-program.html?_r=0) (my emphasis in red):

"The deal does not roll back the vast majority of the advances Iran has made in the past five years, which have drastically shortened what nuclear experts call its 'dash time' to a bomb — the minimum time it would take to build a weapon if Iran’s supreme leader or military decided to pursue that path.

Lengthening that period, so that the United States and its allies would have time to react, is the ultimate goal of President Obama’s negotiating team. It is also a major source of friction between the White House and two allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, which have made no secret of their belief that they are being sold down the river.

. . . .

Iran’s agreement to convert or dilute the fuel stocks that are closest to weapons grade, Mr. Obama said, means that the deal would 'cut off Iran’s most likely paths to a bomb.' But it would cut them off only temporarily, long enough to pursue negotiations without fear that Iran would use the time to inch closer to a weapons capability.

But the rollback he won for this first stage, according to American intelligence estimates, would slow Iran’s dash time by only a month to a few months."

Or stated otherwise, Iran gave up virtually nothing in exchange for sanctions relief.

How did this deal come about? In this regard, the cat is finally out of the bag. As reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-held-secret-talks-with-iran-for-past-year/), secret negotiations were conducted between the US and Iran leading up to the Geneva agreement:

"The United States and Iran secretly engaged in a series of high-level, face-to-face talks over the past year, in a high-stakes diplomatic gamble by the Obama administration that paved the way for the historic deal sealed early Sunday in Geneva aimed at slowing Tehran’s nuclear program, The Associated Press has learned.

The discussions were kept hidden even from America’s closest friends, including its negotiating partners and Israel, until two months ago, and that may explain how the nuclear accord appeared to come together so quickly after years of stalemate and fierce hostility between Iran and the West.

. . . .

The talks were held in the Middle Eastern nation of Oman and elsewhere with only a tight circle of people in the know, the AP learned. Since March, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Jake Sullivan, Vice President Joe Biden’s top foreign policy adviser, have met at least five times with Iranian officials.

The last four clandestine meetings, held since Iran’s reform-minded President Hassan Rouhani was inaugurated in August, produced much of the agreement later formally hammered out in negotiations in Geneva among the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and Iran, said three senior administration officials. All spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss by name the highly sensitive diplomatic effort."

Obama's description of the agreement? His announcement of the agreement yesterday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/national/obama-calls-iran-nuclear-deal-an-important-first-step/2013/11/23/28db1df2-54bc-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_video.html?hpid=z1) avoided any mention of these secret negotiations. Obama began his speech by saying:

"Today, the US together with our close allies and partners, took an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses our concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program."

Obama lied. In fact, the agreement resulted from his secret negotiations with Khamenei, which began before the so-called "moderate" president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, took office on August 3, 2013.

It is remarkable how Obama can claim that this "important first step" was taken "together with our close allies and partners." China and Russian are America's allies and partners, while Israel is not? This introductory sentence truly reflects Obama's mindset.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Oh, Brother! Big Brother Is Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/friedman-oh-brother-big-brother-is-back.html), the head of Obama's foreign policy cheerleader squad, Thomas Friedman, is back with more baloney. Telling us of America's goals in pursuing a deal purportedly constraining Iran's nuclear weapons development program, Friedman writes:

"So, if Iran’s nuclear capabilities are curbed, we can live with that bet on evolutionary change — especially since it would likely facilitate an end to the U.S.-Iran cold war, which has hampered our cooperating on regional issues. Our allies, by contrast, do not trust Iran at all and therefore don’t believe in evolutionary change there. They want Iran stripped of all nuclear technology until there is regime change.

We can’t close that gap. We can only manage it by being very clear about our goals: to unleash politics inside Iran as much as possible, while leashing its nuclear program as tightly as possible, while continuing to protect our Arab and Israeli allies."

Hmm, Obama is seeking "to unleash politics inside Iran"? I suppose that's why he sat silently on the sidelines during Iran's Green Revolution in 2009.

Obama is seeking "evolutionary change" in Iran? Yeah, right, change in a country that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women, murders Baha'is, oppresses Kurds, tyrannizes Sunnis and Christians, shuts down newspapers, and imprisons opposition politicians and throws away the keys.

Perhaps 70 years ago, Roosevelt should have also sought to bring about "evolutionary change" in Nazi Germany.

What is it with Obama and "change"? Regrettably, this befuddled community organizer has only wrought chaos.

William Broad and David Sanger, "Chemical Disarmament Won’t Be Easy": Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

In a New York Times article entitled "Chemical Disarmament Won’t Be Easy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/science/decades-of-disarmament.html?_r=0), William Broad and David Sanger write:

"Four miles from the White House, Army specialists are digging very cautiously into an empty lot where a brick house once stood in one of the district’s toniest neighborhoods, on the edge of the American University campus.

A giant tent covers the site, alarms ready to sound if deadly poisons should leak. After decades of work, decontamination of the old burial ground for World War I chemical munitions is expected to be finished by late next year.

Next year, meanwhile, is also the deadline for Syria to eliminate its entire chemical arsenal, from one end of the country to another, under the American-Russian plan announced 10 days ago.

The disparity between the Syrian rush and the American slog underscores the difficulties facing that plan, even if Syria cooperates."

"Won't be easy"? In fact, elimination of Assad's entire chemical arsenal sometime next year even under optimum conditions (i.e. no civil war), maximum cooperation from both Assad and Putin, and no budgetary limitations is . . . impossible.

Meanwhile, as reported by William Bigelow of Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/22/Crowley-Obama-s-Foreign-Policy-Either-Brilliant-Strategy-or-Sheer-Luck) two days ago:

"With the Middle East in flames and Vladimir Putin of Russia openly mocking Barack Obama, the host of CNN’s State of the Union can only see the President's foreign policy as a success.

Introducing the subjects she would cover, Candy Crowley asked rhetorically, 'And on the eve of the UN General Assembly, a look at the legacy of Barack Obama’s foreign policy: brilliant strategy or sheer luck?'

Later, Crowley asked, 'A couple of weeks ago, the U.S. seemed on the brink of a military strike against Syria. Now in a turn of events, there’s a chance of diplomatic breakthroughs with not only Syria but Iran. Does the president deserve credit or was he in the right place at the right time?'"

"Brilliant strategy or sheer luck"? Yeah, right.

This is the same Candy Crowley who recently asked House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (see: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/09/15/Candy-Crowley-Who-Cares-if-Putin-Gained-From-Syrian-Deal):

"If it has a chance to get rid of chemical weapons, do we really care if Russian got the diplomatic edge?"

Answer to Crowley, CNN's chief Obama apologist: It has no chance.

David Sanger, "Tripping on His Own Red Line?": The Procrastinator-in-Chief Weighs Confrontation with Assad

In a news analysis entitled "Tripping on His Own Red Line?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/sunday-review/tripping-on-his-own-red-line.html), David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, tells us that the US cannot "win" in Syria:

"[Obama] told his staff during recent Situation Room meetings as American naval and air power was moved into the eastern Mediterranean that no United States intervention would alter the long-term balance of power in the Syrian civil war. That was the bitter lesson of the Iraq and Afghan wars for Mr. Obama: any American president who thinks that, by dint of force or example, he can change the nature of societies is bound for a comeuppance. For him, that was the fatal flaw of the George W. Bush presidency, an unquestioning belief that once America defeats a dictator, a newly freed populace will step in to shape the wreckage into a country more in the American image.

That was a bad bet in Iraq and a worse one, Mr. Obama has argued, in Syria. It explains why, when he justified the Libya intervention in 2011 on humanitarian grounds, he was quick to explain that the United States could not move to oust every despot — only the ones, he seemed to suggest, who could be ousted with minimal risks to Americans.

But Syria looks nothing like Libya. It cannot be won from the air, or with missile strikes. Thus Mr. Obama’s insistence that any action in Syria has to be divorced from the civil war that has torn the country to shreds. Instead, the president wants to fight on territory more directly linked to American interests: the notion that once weapons of mass destruction are used in ordinary conflict, the potential for disaster — for America, and certainly for its allies and partners on Syria’s borders — rises dramatically."

I agree in part with President Obama and David Sanger's conclusions.

Several weeks ago, nearly 1,500 civilians were slaughtered in the rebel-controlled outskirts of Damascus by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, using sarin gas. True, more than 100,000 Syrians have died in the civil war over the past two and a half years, and what is 1,500 relative to 100,000? Dead is dead. Moreover, this is not the first time that Assad has used chemical weapons during the fighting. On the other hand, if Obama does not finally say "no," when will this criminal activity end? I believe that "simple" morality is a compelling basis for taking measures to diminish Assad's offensive capabilities.

I also agree that Syria and the rest of the Muslim Middle East are not ripe for American-style democracy.

But the conflict in Syria cannot be "won" from the air? In fact, Assad has been able to take the offensive against the rebels owing predominantly to air power.

Can Assad's air force and air fields be neutralized from afar using Cruise missiles? Answer: Yes.

Moreover, although Syria cannot be reshaped in America's image, there is a significant pro-American Kurdish minority in Syria's northeast that is hungry for independence. Were the Kurds to be given autonomy, might this not count as an American victory? Sanger's analysis does not consider the Kurds.

Meanwhile, America's Procrastinator-in-Chief has decided to seek Congressional approval before launching any attack against the Assad regime. Once again, Assad, Khamenei and Putin are learning that Obama is incapable of taking action without prolonged hesitation. Unfortunately, any limited attack following ultimate Congressional approval is only apt to augment their contempt for the US president.

Sanger writes:

"To do nothing in the face of images of children killed by poison gas would cripple [Obama's] credibility in the last three years of his presidency."

I would argue that to do "next to nothing" would have the same deleterious effect.

Iran: Thomas Pickering Paves the Way to a Nuclear Armageddon

As reported by David Sanger in a New York Times article entitled "Report Urges White House to Rethink Iran Penalties" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/world/middleeast/report-on-iran-urges-obama-to-rethink-sanctions.html?_r=0):

"A panel of former senior American officials and outside experts, including several who recently left the Obama administration, issued a surprisingly critical assessment of American diplomacy toward Iran on Wednesday, urging President Obama to become far more engaged and to reconsider the likelihood that harsh sanctions will drive Tehran to concessions.

In a report issued by the Iran Project, the former diplomats and experts suggested that the sanctions policy, rather than bolstering diplomacy, may be backfiring. As the pressure has increased, the group concluded, sanctions have 'contributed to an increase in repression and corruption within Iran' and 'may be sowing the seeds of long-term alienation between the Iranian people and the United States.'

The critique comes as both Israel and Congress are urging the administration to go in the opposite direction, to put a sharp time limit on negotiations and, if necessary, to go beyond the financial and oil sanctions that have caused a tremendous drop in the value of the Iranian currency and sent inflation soaring.

'I fundamentally believe that the balance between sanctions and diplomacy has been misaligned,' said Thomas R. Pickering, who was one of the State Department’s highest-ranking career diplomats and whom the department has called on to head up important investigations, including one into the death last fall of the American ambassador to Libya.

In an interview, Mr. Pickering also contended that Mr. Obama should review the covert program against Iran — which has included computer sabotage of its nuclear facilities — to 'stop anything that is peripheral, that is not buying us much time' in slowing Iran’s progress."

Yeah, right. Drop the sanctions, and expect the Iranians to gratefully relinquish their nuclear weapons development program. Given the mullahs' underlying humanitarianism over the past several decades, as reflected by the stoning of women, hanging of homosexuals, persecution of Baha'is, oppression of Kurds, repression of Christians, mistreatment of Sunni Muslims, arrest of journalists, and torture of regime opponents, they are sure to respond kindly to such a magnanimous gesture from Washington.

What are these "experts" in Washington smoking?

As for Pickering, Tom co-authored a March 20, 2008 article in The New York Review of Books entitled, "A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112), which begins:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program."

"Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003"? As we all know by now, this "conclusion" amounted to pure rubbish.

"Favorable conditions to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program"? Years of negotiation with Tehran under the Obama administration have led nowhere.

If you think North Korea has turned the Far East upside down, wait and see what happens if Iran is allowed to build its first atomic bomb.

Syria: Obama's Flaccid Red Lines

At an August 20 news conference, Obama declared with regard to potential American intervention in Syria (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html):

"A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus."

Well, Assad has started "moving around" a "whole bunch" of chemical weapons, so Obama has drawn a new line in the sand. Speaking several days ago at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction symposium in Washington (see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/obama-warns-syria-use-of-chemical-weapons-totally-unacceptable/), Obama stated:

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable."

Obama further warned, “I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command, the world is watching.” Yes, Obama like to watch.

As even acknowledged today in a New York Times article entitled "U.S. Shifting Its Warning on Syria’s Chemical Arms" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/world/middleeast/syrias-chemical-weapons-moves-lead-us-to-be-flexible.html) by David Sanger and Eric Schmitt, Obama's intentions are anything but clear:

"When Mr. Obama warned against moving chemical weapons, administration officials said he did not mean shifting the weapons from one site to another, which has happened several times, but preparing them for use.

But in recent days, that is exactly what intelligence agencies fear has happened. American officials have detected that Syrian troops have mixed small amounts of precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, at one or two storage sites."

But why should we be surprised? Obama also made it be known to Iran's mullahs that he would not permit them to build a nuclear weapon, and further warned (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"As president of the United States, I don't bluff."

Well, the mullahs long since called Obama's bluff, and Tehran's nuclear weapons development program continutes unabated.

I suppose this is what happens when the world comes to the realization that an invertebrate is sitting in the Oval Office.

Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad and the Bomb

Imagine for a moment that Libya's Qaddafi had an atomic weapon at his disposal. Faced with his current predicament, would Qaddafi choose to launch the weapon at his domestic enemies, Israel or Europe? Under the present circumstances, I believe that there would be an excellent chance that he would let a nuclear tipped missile fly.

Fortunately for the world, Qaddafi was defanged. In an excellent article entitled "In U.S.-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/middleeast/02arms.html?hp), David Sanger of The New York Times recently wrote:

"Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-flight zone to neutralize the Libyan Air Force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule. While Colonel Qaddafi retains a stockpile of mustard gas, it is not clear he has any effective way to deploy it.

'Imagine the possible nightmare if we had failed to remove the Libyan nuclear weapons program and their longer-range missile force,' said Robert Joseph, who played a central role in organizing the effort, in the months just after the invasion of Iraq.

'You can’t know for sure how far the Libyan program would have progressed in the last eight years,' said Mr. Joseph, who left the administration of President George W. Bush a few years after the Libya events, partly because he believed it had gone soft on nuclear rogue states. But given Colonel Qaddafi’s recent threats, he said on Monday, 'there is no question he would have used whatever he felt necessary to stay in power.'”

Query: Is Iran's Ahmadinejad any less crazy than Qaddafi? Although their symptoms might be different, both men are dangerously psychotic.

Now consider Roger Cohen's April 8, 2009 New York Times op-ed "Israel Cries Wolf" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcohen.html), in which Cohen wrote:

"What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran, as he did Wednesday by saying America would join nuclear talks for the first time."

Cohen's prattle was consistent with the views of other left-leaning commentators: If Israel has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran be given the same rights, which might force Israel to make peace?

As we watch Qaddafi in his death throes, the need to control Iranian nuclear ambitions has never been clearer.