German Foreign Minister Steinmeier Calls for "Courage" in Talks With Iran: Sowing the Seeds of a Second Holocaust

Tweet


According to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Iran now depends upon the participants' "courage." Given Germany's history, it requires "courage" for Germany to allow Iran, which threatens Israel with annihilation every week, to build a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (much less time if Iran cheats - which it will)? "Courage" is not the word I would use.

Meanwhile, Russia is preparing to sell Iran a "wide range of naval equipment."

This comes after a US trade delegation visited Tehran in April as did a German trade delegation that same month. Another US trade delegation visited Iran in May and a Chinese delegation arrived in June.

In addition, as reported by The Times of Israel, "Around 100 French companies are reportedly planning to participate in a delegation to Tehran in September to review business opportunities in the Islamic republic."

Who cares about a second Holocaust? After all, it's all about the $50 billion signing bonus that Obama has promised Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and who will benefit from this windfall.

And this from a Reuters article entitled "Iran nuclear talks: Brothels, bike rides and Groundhog Day" by Fedja Grulovic, Louis Charbonneau and John Irish:

"Anyone who says it's all work and no play for the hordes of diplomats, officials, security agents, analysts and reporters who have descended on Vienna for what should be the finale of almost two years of Iran nuclear talks is dead wrong. As the manager of a local brothel said, when the Iran talks are in town, 'business is booming'.

He declined to say who were his most frequent customers, but made clear that, as far as he was concerned, the longer the negotiations between Iran and six world powers drag on, the better."

What a surprise . . .

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier: The Israeli Government Should "Look More Closely at the Agreement"

Concerning this week's so-called "understanding" between the P5+1 and Iran, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated on Friday, "We ask the Israeli government to look more closely at the agreement."

You would think that the 59-year-old Steinmeier, whose country not so many years ago murdered 70 percent of European Jewry, would know better than to advise Israel how to assess a purported nuclear "understanding" - not an agreement - with a nation whose Supreme Leader is calling for the Jewish nation's annihilation.

Believe me, Steinmeier, we in Israel know an existential threat when we see one, and it is you who should reconsider the implications of providing a barbaric regime, pledged to Israel's destruction, with a nuclear weapons arsenal in 15 years at most.

More specifically, Steinmeier should begin by reading yesterday's Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals," which states:

"THE 'KEY parameters' for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be 'reduced' but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that 'the deal we’ll accept' with Iran 'is that they end their nuclear program' and 'abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.' Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years."

Steinmeier should also consider the conclusions of R. Scott Kemp, Assistant Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, regarding the "understanding" (my emphasis in red):

"A breakout time of three months is technically possible under the current text of the deal. This arises because of a lack of specificity about the non-uranium enrichment capabilities allowed at Fordow. The text of the JCPOA says that no uranium enrichment will occur at Fordow, and that approximately two-thirds of the current 2976 centrifuges installed there will be removed. This leaves the possibility of about 1000 centrifuges at Fordow, enriching elements other than uranium. If 1000 IR-8 centrifuges were installed there, a possibility allowed under the text of JCPOA, then the enrichment capability at Fordow would be equivalent to about 20,000 IR-1 centrifuges or three times that allowed at Natanz."

I would only observe that Professor Kemp is mistaken when he alludes to the "U.S. drafted Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" as the text of the deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif is already denying the accuracy of this "fact sheet":

"The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using 'fact sheets' so early on."

And then there is also the "conventional" threat against Israel posed by Iran's proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, which will receive increased support from Tehran as the sanctions regime is removed. As stated by Charles Krauthammer:

"If Iran is pursuing destabilization and supporting its proxies in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and now in Yemen under conditions of tremendous economic strain and diplomatic isolation, the idea that when we lift the sanctions, we allow billions of dollars to flow into the treasury so it’ll be unconstrained, it will double and triple the amount of support it is giving to the Assad regime in Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in Gaza, and Yemen, and it will also be able to invest all the money — in the maintenance and the advance of the nuclear infrastructure which everybody agrees remains intact. And the idea that it will without isolation decrease its activities when it is on the threshold of being the hegemonic power in the region is completely contrary to all the evidence on the ground."

Hezbollah possesses some 70,000 missiles in Lebanon, all pointed at Israel, and Iran is now upgrading their warheads with guidance systems.

Shame on Steinmeier! Shame on Merkel! Shame on Germany!

Fabius, Hammond, Steinmeier and Mogherini, "Why we extended negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue": Obama's Propaganda War

As was noted last January by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a possible nuclear deal with Iran:

"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."

Well, a deal with Iran continues to be high on Obama's agenda, and the president is obviously concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, will be addressing a joint session of Congress concerning the Iranian nuclear threat. This is not sitting well with Obama, and White House press secretary Josh Earnest was quick to denounce Boehner's invitation as a "departure from protocol."

Now, "just by coincidence," Laurent Fabius, France’s minister of foreign affairs and international development, Philip Hammond, Britain’s foreign secretary, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s federal minister for foreign affairs, and Federica Mogherini, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, have written a guest Washington Post op-ed entitled "Why we extended negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue." These four horsemen of the apocalypse distinguished diplomats write:

"Whereas previous inspections only occurred once every few weeks, the International Atomic Energy Agency is now able to conduct daily inspections of the Natanz and Fordow facilities, and the Arak reactor is now subject to monthly inspections."

Of course there is no mention by Fabius, Hammond, Steinmeier and Mogherini of Iran's refusal to permit IAEA access to the Parchin weapons development facility. Or stated otherwise, the IAEA is being given access to the sites where there is no nuclear weapons development, but access continues to be denied where such development is almost surely continuing unabated.

How gratifying . . .