New York Times Editorial, "President Trump’s Mideast Contradictions": Rouhani a "Moderate"?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "President Trump’s Mideast Contradictions," The New York Times observes with respect to Trump's initial stopover in Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip:

"The Saudi human rights record is no better than Iran’s."

The Times is correct in this regard: Iran stones to death women accused of adultery and hangs gay men, while Saudi Arabia lashes and imprisons women who have been gang-raped and beheads persons accused of witchcraft. However, having established that Saudi Arabia is no better than Iran concerning human rights, the Times editorial goes on to lavish praise upon Iran's recently re-elected president:

"Even as Mr. Trump reaffirmed America’s partnership with the conservative Saudi royals, Iranians were re-electing a moderate, Hassan Rouhani, as president and reaffirming their interest in engagement with the West."

Ah yes, Rouhani the "moderate." Who cares if Iran, under Rouhani's leadership, executes more persons per capita than any other country in the world? Moreover, as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency in December 2015:

"Iran's President Hassan Rouhani on Thursday ordered Defense Minister General Hossein Dehqan to enhance and accelerate development of the country's missile capability in response to the United States' new sanctions against Tehran's defense program.

President Rouhani noted the United States' "hostile policies and illegal and illegitimate meddling against Iran's right to develop its defensive power", and ordered the defense minister to accelerate production of various types of missiles needed by the Iranian Armed Forces more powerfully.

'As the United States seems to plan to include the names of new individuals and firms in its previous list of cruel sanctions in line with its hostile policies and illegitimate and illegal meddling in the Islamic Republic of Iran's right to reinvigorate its defense power, the program for the production of the Armed Forces' needed missiles is required to continue more speedily and seriously,' President Rouhani's written order to the Defense Minister read.

President Rouhani's decree came in reaction to the US Treasury Department's announcement that it is preparing sanctions on two Iran-linked networks helping develop the missile program.

The presidential decree also required the defense ministry to think of new missile production programs at a much wider scale in case Washington continues its sanctions policy against Iran's defense industries."

Have you any doubt as to whom those missiles will be directed against? Rouhani declared in 2013, "The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed."

 And as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency in August 2015:

"'We will purchase weapons from wherever we deem necessary and we are not waiting for anyone's permission; if we deem necessary we will sell our weapons and we will do this without paying attention to any resolution,' President Rouhani said, addressing a ceremony held to commemorate the National Defense Industry Day in Iran on Saturday." 

Or stated otherwise, Iran will continue to import whatever arms systems they desire and freely transfer them to Hezbollah and Hamas for use against Israel.

Seeking a more nuanced approach to Iran, the Times editorial concludes:

"Mr. Trump’s determination to forge an anti-Iran alliance with the Sunni Arab states and isolate Iran could drift into military confrontation. The nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and the United States could unravel, causing a split with America’s European allies. These are consequences that Mr. Trump, in his enthusiasm for Saudi Arabia, seems to have thought little about."

Apparently unbeknownst to the author of this editorial, such a confrontation already occurred last week in southern Syria, when US warplanes attacked an Iranian-commanded Hezbollah convoy which was approaching US, British and Jordanian special forces. Also apparently unbeknownst to the author of this editorial with respect to Obama's sacrosanct unsigned nuclear deal, a "moderate" Rouhani informed Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolution Council in 2004:

"While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan. . . . in fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan. Today, we can convert yellowcake into UF4 and UF6, and this is a very important matter."

Bottom line, with "moderates" like Rouhani, who needs "radicals"?

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. 

Jay Solomon, "White House Delays Imposing New Sanctions on Iran for Missile Program ": Profiles in Cowardice

Tweet

Yesterday I wrote:

"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."

Well, in a Wall Street Journal article entitled "White House Delays Imposing New Sanctions on Iran for Missile Program," Jay Solomon also informed us yesterday:

"The White House has delayed its plan to impose new financial sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile program, according to U.S. officials, amid growing tensions with Iran over the nuclear deal struck earlier this year.

. . . .

Republican leaders on Thursday accused the Obama administration of losing its will to challenge Iran after Tehran countered on Thursday that it would accelerate the development of its arsenal.

'If the president’s announced sanctions ultimately aren’t executed, it would demonstrate a level of fecklessness that even the president hasn’t shown before,” said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a leading critic of the nuclear deal, in an interview.'

. . . .

The State Department offered no explanation for the delay."

Acceleration of Iran's ballistic missile programs? Indeed, as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency yesterday:

"Iran's President Hassan Rouhani on Thursday ordered Defense Minister General Hossein Dehqan to enhance and accelerate development of the country's missile capability in response to the United States' new sanctions against Tehran's defense program.

President Rouhani noted the United States' "hostile policies and illegal and illegitimate meddling against Iran's right to develop its defensive power", and ordered the defense minister to accelerate production of various types of missiles needed by the Iranian Armed Forces more powerfully.

'As the United States seems to plan to include the names of new individuals and firms in its previous list of cruel sanctions in line with its hostile policies and illegitimate and illegal meddling in the Islamic Republic of Iran's right to reinvigorate its defense power, the program for the production of the Armed Forces' needed missiles is required to continue more speedily and seriously,' President Rouhani's written order to the Defense Minister read.

President Rouhani's decree came in reaction to the US Treasury Department's announcement that it is preparing sanctions on two Iran-linked networks helping develop the missile program.

The presidential decree also required the defense ministry to think of new missile production programs at a much wider scale in case Washington continues its sanctions policy against Iran's defense industries."

Ah yes, Rouhani the "moderate" . . .

However, Obama is not taking this talk of White House "fecklessness" lying down. As reported today in a lead Washington Post article entitled "Obama thinks his Syria strategy is right — and folks just don’t get it" by Karen DeYoung:

"As President Obama flew home from Asia aboard Air Force One in late November, he scolded his aides about how poorly the administration was communicating the U.S.-led strategy against the Islamic State.

. . . .

Aides agreed that the message they had heard on the road was 'jarring,' said a senior administration official who was on the flight.

But while many outside the administration found the strategy itself lacking, Obama felt what they really needed was to do a better job of explaining it. He ordered what the official called an 'uptick in our communications tempo.'"

Got it: The first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office seeks to counter talk of presidential cowardice, bungling of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and failure to prevent terror attacks within the US with a new communications campaign. Why am I not surprised?

January 20, 2017 cannot come soon enough.

Do You Recall David Ignatius Saying of Iran, "the Nation That Chanted in Unison 'Death to America' Is Probably Gone Forever""?

Tweet

Do you remember David Ignatius writing in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit" :

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

Well, in case there was ever any doubt except in the minds of Ignatius and Obama, have a look at a November 2, 2015 Yahoo! News article entitled "'Death to America' stands despite nuclear deal: Iran MPs," which informs us:

"Tehran (AFP) - A clear majority of Iranian legislators said Monday the Islamic republic will not abandon the slogan of "Death to America" despite its July nuclear accord with world powers.

'The martyr-nurturing nation of Iran is not at all prepared to abandon the slogan of 'Death to America' under the pretext of a nuclear agreement," 192 members of Iran's 290-seat parliament said in a statement carried by state news agency IRNA.

They said the slogan, chanted at the weekly Friday prayers in mosques and at protests, had "turned into the symbol of the Islamic republic and all struggling nations'."

Of course, "moderate" Iranian President Hassan "the Hangman" Rouhani explained in September:

"This slogan that is chanted is not a slogan against the American people. Our people respect the American people."

Or stated otherwise, when Iranians cry "Death to America!," they don't really want to kill you. Yeah, right.

Roger Cohen, "Ripples of the Iran Deal": Palestinian Stabbings Are "Understandable"

Tweet

Apparently in response to Iran's arrest of another Iranian-American, Siamak Namazi, a businessman who has actively supported improved ties between the US and Iran, and the conviction earlier this month of Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian for espionage, Roger Cohen is celebrating Obama's "transformative" nuclear deal with Khamemei. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Ripples of the Iran Deal," Cohen begins by observing:

"There was never any chance the Iran nuclear deal would be hermetic. One of its merits is to condemn the United States and Iran to a relationship, however hostile, over the next decade and a half at least. Now, within months, it has led to Iran’s presence at peace negotiations on Syria. That’s a good thing.

It’s a good thing because no end to the Syrian civil war is possible without the involvement of all the actors. Iran is one, directly and through its surrogate Hezbollah."

Got it: Iran orders Hezbollah fighters into Syria from Lebanon and is then invited by the Obama administration to participate in peace talks, and this is a "good thing." Why does this sound more like more appeasement coming from the White House?

Cohen continues:

"The fact is neither Khamenei, a hard-liner, nor the reformists led by President Hassan Rouhani can ignore the other."

Rouhani is a "reformer"? Iran, under Rouhani's leadership, executes more persons per capita than any other country in the world, and this rate is rising.

Next Cohen would have us know:

"But Iran has long been a useful distraction from Israel’s core problem, Palestine. Iran is far away from Jerusalem and Iranians seldom think about Israel."

Fascinating.  Iran's commander of it Quds Force, Major General Qasem Soleimani, recently visited Quneitra, one mile away from the Israel's border with Syria. Hey, Roger, given Iran's perpetual threats to exterminate Israel, what do you think he was doing there?

And then Cohen calls Palestinian stabbings of Israelis "understandable":

"Oppressed people will do such things. The oppression does not make random Palestinian stabbings of Israelis defensible. They are vicious crimes against innocent people. But it makes them understandable. Violence is the other face of the so-called status quo that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes to be in Israel’s interest. Violence is inextricable from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank that is almost a half-century old. Stateless non-citizens, living behind a high-tech wall among colonial settler garrisons, will not all acquiesce to their fate."

"Understandable"? The wave of stabbings has nothing to do with Israeli settlements. Rather, it has to do with a baseless rumor that Israel plans to destroy the al Aqsa Mosque, which gave rise to Palestinian Authority President Abbas's declaration that Jews have no right to defile the Temple Mount with their "filthy feet". Of course, no mention of this by Cohen.

But more to the point, if oppressed persons from America's inner cities were to start stabbing middle-class whites, would Cohen also label such attacks as "understandable"? I don't think so.

And just to set the record straight, that "high-tech wall" to which Cohen refers is 90 percent fence. But why should the facts get in the way of Cohen?

Sickening.

Rouhani Bares the Lies in Obama's Letter to Jerrold Nadler

Tweet

In his August 19, 2015 letter to US Congressman Jerrold Nadler, President Obama wrote in support of his nuclear deal with Iran (my emphasis in red):

"As I have underscored repeatedly, it is imperative that, even as we effectively cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon through implementation of the JCPOA, we take steps to ensure we and our allies and partners are more capable than ever to deal with Iran's destabilizing activities and support for terrorism. This involves deepened cooperation and information sharing with Israel and Gulf Cooperation Council partners; it also involves continued enforcement of international and U.S. law, including sanctions related to Iran's non-nuclear activities. With very limited exceptions, Iran will continue to be denied access to our market - the world's largest - and we will maintain powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for groups such as Hizballah, its destabilizing role in Yemen, its backing of the Assad regime, its missile program, and its human rights abuses at home. Critically, I made sure that the United States reserved its right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns, which we fully intend to do when circumstances warrant."

This would all be very comforting were it not for the declaration today of Iran's "moderate" President Hassan Rouhani. As reported by Iran's Fars News Agency:

"'We will purchase weapons from wherever we deem necessary and we are not waiting for anyone's permission; if we deem necessary we will sell our weapons and we will do this without paying attention to any resolution,' President Rouhani said, addressing a ceremony held to commemorate the National Defense Industry Day in Iran on Saturday." 

Or stated otherwise, Iran will continue to import whatever arms systems they desire and then freely transfer them to Hezbollah and Hamas for use against Israel.

I can only hope and pray that Nadler, who has become the poster boy for Jewish Congressional support of Obama's risible nuclear deal with Khamenei, will never be reelected.

Thomas Friedman, "Backing Up Our Wager With Iran": Blithering, Blathering Brainlessness

Tweet


Anyone who has studied contracts law knows that in order for there to be a binding agreement, there must be a meeting of the minds. However, as is becoming increasingly apparent, there is no meeting of the minds between the P5+1 and Iran. John Kerry has told the US that pursuant to the nuclear deal with Iran that Obama brokered, Iran will no longer be able to send funds or weapons to regional surrogates, i.e. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. Contradicting Kerry, Susan Rice claims that Iran can only send funds to these proxies. However, contradicting both Kerry and Rice, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated on Tuesday, "We have told them [the P5+1] in the negotiations that we will supply arms to anyone and anywhere necessary and will import weapons from anywhere we want and we have clarified this during the negotiations."

Or stated otherwise, there is no agreement with Iran, and Iran will continue to promote terror throughout the Middle East.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Backing Up Our Wager With Iran," a sycophantic Thomas Friedman praises Obama's deal with Khamenei. Friedman writes:

"[T]he diplomatic option structured by the Obama team — if properly implemented and augmented by muscular diplomacy — serves core American interests better than any options I hear coming from the deal’s critics: It prevents Iran from producing the fissile material to break out with a nuclear weapon for 15 years and creates a context that could empower the more pragmatic forces inside Iran over time — at the price of constraining, but not eliminating, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and sanctions relief that will strengthen Tehran as a regional power."

The deal "prevents Iran from producing the fissile material to break out with a nuclear weapon for 15 years"? Tell me, Tom, do you truly believe that Iran will abide by the terms of the agreement over the course of 15 years and will not try to cheat in the interim? As observed by Michael Makovsky in a Weekly Standard article entitled "Iran’s Cheating":

"Iran has a long and proud history of cheating on its international nuclear agreements. Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who once monitored Iran’s nuclear program, observed in 2013: 'If there is no undeclared installation today .  .  . it will be the first time in 20 years that Iran doesn’t have one.' Indeed, Iran’s main enrichment facility at Natanz was a covert facility that was only discovered in 2002, by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group. A year later, the European Union struck a deal with Iran to prevent it from spinning its centrifuges and beginning to enrich uranium. Yet for much of the deal, Iran was busy mastering its uranium supply chain. 'While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran,” wrote Iran’s nuclear negotiator and now president Hassan Rouhani, 'we were installing equipment in parts of the [uranium conversion] facility at Isfahan. .  .  . In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan.' In 2009, the world learned of yet another clandestine enrichment plant, under a mountain at Fordow, that Iran was trying to construct.

. . . .

In the past year alone Iran has violated its international agreements at least three times. First, even though the interim Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) prohibited Iran from enriching uranium in any centrifuges that were not in use at the time the deal went into effect in January 2014, last November the IAEA caught Iran operating a new centrifuge—worse still, it was an advanced IR-5 model. Second, the JPOA required Iran to process any low-enriched uranium it produced during the deal’s term from the gaseous form used for enrichment into a solid that can be used as reactor fuel, so that it would not be readily available for further enrichment and potential breakout. As of February 2015, Iran had an excess of some 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, in violation of the deal’s terms. Third, in parallel to the JPOA, the IAEA and Iran signed a Framework for Cooperation under which Iran agreed to answer outstanding IAEA concerns about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. Iran answered only one question to the IAEA’s satisfaction and, for the past six months, has been stonewalling on the rest."

So, suddenly Iran is going to stop cheating? Yeah, right.

Friedman goes on to say that Obama is "betting that [the deal] will empower Iran’s moderate faction and put the country on a more favorable societal trajectory." The "moderate faction"? Oh, Friedman must be referring Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, "famous" for hanging gay men and bragging during the 2013 presidential election how he lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Tom Terrific suggest four things to increase the odds that Obama's "bet goes our way." First, Friedman calls for Obama to "appoint a respected military figure to oversee every aspect of implementing this deal." Appoint a "respected general"? That will help a lot, particularly when Iran is refusing to allow Americans to inspect its nuclear sites.

Second, Friedman says: "Congress should pass a resolution authorizing this and future presidents to use force to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state. Iran must know now that the U.S. president is authorized to destroy — without warning or negotiation — any attempt by Tehran to build a bomb." Obama use force against Iran? Iran already knows that Obama is incapable of this.

Third, Friedman would have America "[f]ocus on the Iranian people" and "reach out to them in every way — visas, exchanges and scholarships." America wants more Iranians, handpicked by the Khamenei regime, in its midst? Good luck!

Fourth, Friedman declares that America should "[a]void a black-and-white view of the Middle East." He explains, "The idea that Iran is everywhere our enemy . . . is a mistake." Oh really? Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei declared on Saturday that US policies are "180 degrees" opposed to those of Iran, and that "even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant US will not change." Khamenei's speech was accompanied by chants of "Death to America!"

When will someone from Obama's inner circle burst the president's bubble? It certainly won't come from Tom Friedman, who lacks either the integrity or the intelligence to inform the president that he made a fool's wager.

New York Times Editorial, "An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces the Chance of War": Who Is the Naif Who Wrote This Twaddle?

As might be expected, The New York Times was quick to commend Obama's pact with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In an editorial entitled "An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces the Chance of War," the Times declares:

"Many of the various restrictions in the agreement will be in force for 10 to 25 years. Some, notably Iran’s agreement to constant and technologically advanced monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, will last indefinitely, as will its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to never produce a nuclear weapon. Inspectors will have access to suspicious sites 'where necessary, when necessary,' President Obama said, and if Iran cheats, that will be detected early enough to respond, including by quickly reimposing sanctions or taking military action."

"[T]he agreement will be in force for 10 to 25 years"? Actually, the agreement will remain in force only so long as Iran abides by it, and even this past June, Iran was engaged in the illegal purchase of nuclear weapons technology.

Iran's commitment to never produce a nuclear weapon "will last indefinitely"? Of course there is every reason to believe what we are told by a theocratic regime that hangs gay men, stones to death women accused of adultery, savagely persecute Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, jails and brutalizes journalists and political opponents, backs Shiite militias in Iraq that are engaged in ethnic cleansing, bombed a Jewish community center in distant Argentina, threatens to annihilate Israel on an almost daily basis, and executes poets for "waging war on God."

No mention by the Times how the so-called "moderate" president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, informed his countrymen in 2013 that he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program,

Needless to say, also no mention by the Times that whereas Obama promised "anywhere, anytime" inspections, we now have "where necessary, when necessary" inspections. What does this mean? A forum must be convened to adjudge whether IAEA inspectors should be given access to sites where illicit Iranian activity is suspected. This in turn means that anything illicit can be cleaned up or moved long before IAEA inspectors arrive at the scene of the crime, provided the mullahs decide to honor the terms of the agreement.

"[I]f Iran cheats, that will be detected early enough to respond, including by quickly reimposing sanctions or taking military action"? Europe, will be feasting on trade agreements after sanctions are removed, and it will be extremely loathe to reinstate those limitations. Moreover, the United States, under the leadership of the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office, does not have the gumption to undertake a military strike against Iran.

A pity we will never know who authored this noxious editorial.

Thomas Friedman, "What’s Up With You?": Tom's Truth About China Will Set You Free

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "What’s Up With You?," Thomas Friedman would explain to us America's relationship with China:

"But here’s the truth: the American and Chinese economies and futures today are now totally intertwined, so much so that they are the real 'one country-two systems' to watch.

. . . .

Both countries almost take for granted the ties that bind them today: the $600 billion in annual bilateral trade; the 275,000 Chinese studying in America, and the 25,000 Americans studying in China; the fact that China is now America’s largest agricultural market and the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt; and the fact that last year Chinese investment in the United States for the first time exceeded American investment in China."

Ah yes, the "truth." Friedman could have also mentioned that the prison population in the US is the highest in the world, with second place going to China. On the other hand, the US doesn't even come near China's world-leading number of executions per annum. (Iran under its "moderate" president Hassan Rouhnai is executing people, including homosexuals and women accused of adultery, at a record pace and coming up fast in this category.)

Observing a trend toward innovation in China, Friedman writes of Chinese President Xi:

"Xi has begun a huge push for 'innovation,' for transforming China’s economy from manufacturing and assembly to more knowledge-intensive work, so this one-child generation will be able to afford to take care of two retiring parents in a country with an inadequate social-safety net.

. . . .

President Xi seems to be betting that China is big enough and smart enough to curb the Internet and political speech just enough to prevent dissent but not enough to choke off innovation. This is the biggest bet in the world today. And if he’s wrong (and color me dubious) we’re all going to feel it."

"We're all going to feel it"? Especially if American is forced to pay back its $1.3 trillion debt to China anytime soon.

Meanwhile, if China is successful in its push for innovation, one can only wonder what it will do with it 3 million slave laborers. (No mention of slave labor in Tom's opinion piece.)

"One country-two systems"? "Two systems" without a doubt, but "one country" is more than I can stomach.

Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, "The Iran Deal and Its Consequences": Coaxing Obama Down From His Tree

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "The Iran Deal and Its Consequences," Henry Kissinger and George Shultz yesterday diplomatically concluded:

"Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms. History will not do our work for us; it helps only those who seek to help themselves."

Or stated otherwise, a nuclear deal with Iran will not provide Obama with a legacy of the kind Nixon established for himself by seeking to normalize relations with China. Quite the contrary, Obama, a foreign policy naif, has embarked on a mission of self-aggrandizement, which is apt to spawn disaster, i.e. turn nuclear arms into conventional weapons.

One can only wonder what Kissinger and Shultz would have added had they known of Iranian President Rouhani's televised declaration today that "We will not sign any deal unless all sanctions are lifted on the same day."

No less remarkable was Marie Harf's attempt on Tuesday to explain away Obama's admission that after 13 years of signing a deal with Iran, "breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

It just can't get any worse.

Obama Lied: There Was No "Historic Understanding" Between the P5+1 and Iran in Lausanne

In a New York Times article entitled "Outline of Iran Nuclear Deal Sounds Different From Each Side," Michael Gordon explains that after reaching the purported "understanding" in Lausanne last Thursday, Iran and the P5+1 issued only a seven-paragraph public statement. In fact, this was in keeping with what Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif had said would happen. However, as later admitted to The New York Times by an anonymous American "senior administration official":

"'We talked to them and told them that we would have to say some things.' . . . 'We didn’t show them the paper [US State Department fact sheet]. We didn’t show them the whole list.'

The official acknowledged that it was 'understood that we had different narratives, but we wouldn’t contradict each other.'"

Well, it now turns out that the "fact sheets" issued by the US and Iran differ significantly regarding what was "agreed." Michael Gordon's article informs us:

"A careful review shows that there is considerable overlap between the two accounts, but also some noteworthy differences — which have raised the question of whether the two sides are entirely on the same page, especially on the question of how quickly sanctions are to be removed. The American and Iranian statements also do not clarify some critical issues, such as precisely what sort of research Iran will be allowed to undertake on advanced centrifuges during the first 10 years of the accord."

Indeed, as I noted in a blog item yesterday, Seyed Abbas Araqchi, Iran's Deputy Lead Negotiator in the talks, is insisting that the US State Department's "fact sheet" detailing the Lausanne nuclear understanding is completely off the mark regarding the critical issue of ending sanctions. As reported by Fars News:

"This is a wrong impression about the Lausanne understanding," Araqchi told the state-run TV on Saturday.

"The Lausanne statement explicitly states that the sanctions will be annulled; all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions will be removed in the first stage," Araqchi stressed.

 

He said the contents of the White House factsheet about the Lausanne agreements are wrong, and the statements made by  the (US State Department) spokeswoman are wrong too," Araqchi added.

 

He reiterated that economic sanctions and restrictions against Iran will be removed in the first stage of the implementation of the agreement.

 

"And if the Americans have an impression other than this, well it will surely be the topic of negotiations in the next round of the talks," Araqchi added.

In line with what Araqchi stated, Iranian President Rouhani today added:

"During the negotiations, we have always planned for the termination of the economic, financial and banking sanctions and we have never negotiated on their suspension, otherwise, no understanding would be made."

The Times of Israel reports in an article entitled "US, Iran publicly at odds over 6 key aspects of nuke deal, Israeli expert finds" that Ehud Ya’ari, Middle East analyst for Israel’s Channel 2 News and an international fellow at the Washington Institute, has found "six gaping areas of discrepancy between American and Iranian accounts of what the agreement actually entails":

1. Sanctions: "the US has made clear that economic sanctions will be lifted in phases, whereas the Iranian fact sheet provides for the immediate lifting of all sanctions as soon as a final agreement is signed, which is set for June 30."
2. Enrichment: "The American parameters provide for restrictions on enrichment for 15 years, while the Iranian fact sheet speaks of 10 years."
3. Development of advanced centrifuges at Fordo: "The US says the framework rules out such development, . . . while the Iranians say they are free to continue this work."
4. Inspections: "The US says that Iran has agreed to surprise inspections, while the Iranians say that such consent is only temporary."
5. Stockpile of already enriched uranium: "Contrary to the US account, Iran is making clear that its stockpile of already enriched uranium — 'enough for seven bombs' if sufficiently enriched, . . . will not be shipped out of the country, although it may be converted."
6. PMD: "The issue of the Possible Military Dimensions of the Iranian program, central to the effort to thwart Iran, has not been resolved."

A "historic understanding" as Obama would have us know? Actually, it's all eyewash, intended to prevent the US Congress from interfering with the president's desperate efforts to add rapprochement with Iran to his "legacy."

Jackson Diehl, "A deal bigger than Iran": My Query, Would Obama Have Inked a Deal With Hitler?

What are the intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Supreme Leader Khamenei regarding Israel and world Jewry? Actually, they are fairly obvious. Khamenei, in a recent tweet, called for the annihilation of Israel. Iran holds annual cartoon competitions mocking the Holocaust. Iran was responsible for the bombing of the Jewish community center in distant Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 people. Hassan Nasrallah, who heads Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy in Lebanon, declared in 2002: "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." And the covenant of Hamas, which is armed by Iran, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

Obama would have us ignore these declarations and the actions of Iran and its proxies, as he seeks to finalize an agreement with Iran, providing the mullahs with a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (seven years if Tehran has its way in the negotiations). Obama either believes, or would have us believe, that Iranian President Rouhani is a "moderate," who needs support in a purported battle with Iranian "hardliners." Do you recall Obama's "historic" 15-minute phone call to Rouhani in September 2013, while Rouhani was en route from the United Nations to the airport? Well, the Iranian poet Hashem Shaabani was subsequently hanged in January 2014 after the "moderate" Rouhani approved the death sentence.

What do I think when someone threatens to kill me? Unlike Obama, I believe him. On the other hand, it is also possible that a narcissistic Obama, who listened apathetically to the anti-Semitic harangues of the Reverend Wright for 20 years without objection, doesn't care about threats to Israel or world Jewry.

Query: Do Iranian threats to annihilate Israel apply only to Israel and the Jews? I don't think so. While campaigning for Iran's presidency, the "moderate" Rouhani declared on May 8, 2013 in the city of Karaj:

"We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy."

Apparently, Obama would also discount this threat.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A deal bigger than Iran," Jackson Diehl concludes:

"The point is that Obama’s negotiations with Iran are not just about whether it will obtain a nuclear weapon; they are about the future of the Middle East. Notwithstanding the White House spin, the outcome is unlikely to lead to war in the near future. But it may determine who wins the long-term contest for influence between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf."

Diehl is wrong. First, Iran is already involved in wars throughout the Middle East: in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Moreover, the consequences of an Obama deal with Khamenei are anything but "long-term." Does Diehl honestly believe that Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will stand idly by as Iran develops an arsenal of ICBMs (such development does not even fall within the framework of the P5+1's discussions with Iran)? If Obama is responsible for inking a deal with Iran that gives the mullahs nuclear weapons within a decade, these nations will also be certain to initiate nuclear weapons development programs of their own. And if in a decade, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all have atomic weapons, I can promise you that they will be used. After all, there have been dozens of Middle East conflicts over the past several decades not even including wars involving Israel.

In the event of a Sunni/Shiite conflict, might a nuclear-tipped Iranian ICBM also fall on New York or Washington, thus speeding the coming of the Mahdi, who will will lead Shiite Muslim armies to victory over infidels in the final days? You would have to be quite naive to discount this possibility. After all, Iran is a country that stones to death women and hangs homosexuals.

Now back to the question posed in the title of this blog entry: If the year was 1938 and Obama stood in the place of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, would America's president have sought "peace for our time"? Would he have found Nazi "moderates" with whom to talk? Would he have signed a conciliatory deal with Hitler? I'm certain of it. In fact, during his 2013 second inaugural address, Obama declared (my emphasis in red):

"And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice."

The way to attain "peace in our time" is to reach out to monsters who sentence poets to death? Again, I don't think so. Instead, you stop them in their tracks while you still can.

Roger Cohen, "The Other Iran Letter": Now Read a Real Open Letter Written From Prison by the Iranian Poet Hashem Shaabani

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Other Iran Letter," Roger Cohen pens an "open letter to the leaders of the United States of America." Well, anyone who reads this blog knows what I think of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, and rather than relate to Cohen's drivel, I prefer to provide you with a portion of a real open letter written from an Iranian prison in 2013 by the poet Hashem Shaabani:

"In February 11/2011 when I was at home and after my return of the Sheakh Ansari minor school (I am a teacher and I was teaching Arabic language in different minor school and high school) the Iranian intelligence services arrested me and after a long interrogation they accused me of the founder of the popular Resistance movement for liberation of Ahwaz and as I mentioned above I used this nicknames just to express my feeling toward the misery and the unspeakable oppression of my people and these nicknames have nothing to do with outside but the interrogators of mine refused my claims and let me to confess on myself under the severe and unbearable tortures physically and psychologically. Under the ongoing tortures I have lost my control on my real conscious and my mind engulfed with hallucination that made me to confess and accept the imposed charges that extracted of myself and the friends of mine by harsh tortures in the solitary confinement. After a long term in the solitary confinement the intelligence service transferred me to the Karoon prison. My first trial along with my friends was on May 21/2012 in the revolutionary court of Ahwaz in which I understood the reality and strongly rejected the charges of having link with organizations outside of the country and I said to the judge that the external organization that you are claiming about it ,is nobody just me Hashem Shabbani. In fact I confessed on myself due to the severe tortures and the intelligence security extracted the confessions from me and my friends according to their will. Finally after passing three sessions of my trial in court I have got aware of the fake scenario that fabricated by the intelligence service by extracting baseless confessions and using them against us. I have got shocked when I read the verified death penalty sentences that issued against me and four of my friends along with 20 years in exile for my friend Rahman Assakre."

Hashem Shaabani was hanged to death on January 27, 2014 after "moderate" Iranian President Hassan Rouhani approved the sentence.

David Ignatius, "GOP senators’ letter to Iran is dangerous and irresponsible": Echoing Obama

In response to the open letter to Iran from 47 Republican senators, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "GOP senators’ letter to Iran is dangerous and irresponsible," writes:

"To this assertion of the impermanence of an agreement, Khamenei and other hard-liners might well respond with an Iranian version of 'Amen.' Indeed, they could use the Senate GOP letter as a rationale for abandoning aspects of the deal they find too constraining. That would force the United States to consider military action. The casus belli, bizarrely, might begin with an argument made by Senate Republicans."

"Khamenei and other hard-liners"? What Ignatius doesn't understand is that there is only one person calling the shots in Iran and that's Khamenei. Everyone else in Iran is subservient to him.

Iranian "moderates"? Who are they? Iranian President Hassan Rouhani? As reported in December 2014 in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Execution rate accelerates in Iran under Rouhani" by Hagai Lap:

"The rise in the number of trials and death sentences during the rule of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, runs counter to the expectations of improved human rights in Iran following the rule of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number of death trials have risen by 16% in comparison with last year of Ahmadinejad's presidency, which is the highest in 15 years."

And let's not forget Rouhani's pre-election interview in which he boasted how, in the past, he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is a "moderate"? Last week he said the Netanyahu regime "should be annihilated."

Of course, Ignatius is only echoing what Obama told reporters yesterday: "I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran," but why should this surprise us?

Iran's "Moderate" President Rouhani Threatens "Faster Progress of Iran's Peaceful Nuclear Program"

Following Netanyahu's speech before Congress, Iran's so-called "moderate" President Rouhani is demanding that the P5+1 ignore the Israeli prime minister's warnings and reach immediate agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear development program. A Fars New Agency article entitled "President Rouhani: Iran Accepts Only Good Deal with Powers" informs us:

"Rouhani downplayed the effectiveness of Netanyahu's remarks against Iran, and said, 'We are after a win-win, balanced and durable agreement and such an agreement with such features will benefit the region and the world.'

Noting that the G5+1 is facing two choices, he said it should either reach an agreement and understanding with Iran within the framework of logic and the international regulations as soon as possible, or 'deny the realities on the ground and, as a result, witness even a faster progress of Iran's peaceful nuclear program'."

"Witness even a faster progress of Iran's peaceful nuclear program"? "Peaceful"? Yeah, right.

This is not a pistol being pointed at America's head?

David Ignatius, "Proceed with caution on Iran diplomacy": Ignorance and Ignomy

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Proceed with caution on Iran diplomacy," David Ignatius asks what should the United States and Iran do if their negotiations over Iran's nuclear development program should fail. Ignatius tells us that nothing should be done:

"[A]t least initially, both sides would be wise to do nothing. It’s like a labor negotiation where both parties conclude that it’s in their interest to keep working by the old rules even after a contract has expired."

Why should the US do nothing? Apparently, Ignatius thinks that by doing "something," the US might undermine Iran's so-called moderate president, Hassan Rouhani:

"That raises another delicate question for Washington if talks break down: how to avoid collapsing the authority of President Hassan Rouhani, who has favored negotiations, and reinforcing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s suspicion that the talks were just a U.S. trick."

Or in other words, Ignatius is buying into Iran's "good cop/bad cop" routine. But in reality, Rouhani would not dare to contradict the desires of Khamenei. And if anyone seeks evidence of Rouhani's true intentions, he/she need only have a look at the pre-election interview in which Rouhani boasted how, in the past, he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Ignatius claims that Iran would control its nuclear weapons ambitions even in the event that a deal is not reached:

"Iran must also reckon with the dangerous prospect that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps Turkey would begin their own bomb-making programs, in a post-negotiation world."

But Ignatius is ascribing rational thinking to a regime that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, discriminates against its Kurdish minority, commits atrocities against Baha'is, and continues to threaten Israel with annihilation. Does David really think that Tehran is concerned that the Saudis might build their own atomic weapons many years hence? Khamenei would also threaten the House of Saud with extinction.

By now it should be clear to all, except Obama and his die-hard friends, that Western rules do not govern the behavior of radical Islam. Oops, I used the words "radical Islam." Pardon my faux pas.

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.

New York Times Editorial, "Inching Forward With Iran": Rouhani Bitch Slaps President Obama

"To open handedley slap someone. Denote disrespect for the person being bitch slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining."

- Definition of "bitch slap," Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bitch+Slap)

In recent days, Obama's homespun foreign policy has met with disaster:

• Notwithstanding Obama's promise of "flexibility" to Putin, Russia has annexed Crimea and is threatening to invade eastern Ukraine.
• Talks sponsored by John Kerry between the Assad regime and Syrian rebels have crumbled.
• Although some 60 percent of the Assad regime's arsenal of chemical weapons has been turned over for destruction, there is little chance that Assad will hand over the remainder, as agreed, by April 27 (see: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26979101). Meanwhile, Assad again used chemical weapons against rebels in Damascus two weeks ago (see: http://www.timesofisrael.com/assad-using-chemical-weapons-again-israeli-official-says/).
• Peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians sponsored by John Kerry have also crumbled (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israeli-officials-Zero-chances-for-peace-talks-to-break-impasse-before-end-of-April-348304).

Now, if all that wasn't enough, Hassan Rouhani, the so-called "moderate" president of Iran, who has been busy executing homosexuals and poets at an ever quickening pace (see: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/10/iran-steps-up-pace-executions-as-it-courts-west/), has sought to appoint Hamid Aboutalebi as Iran's ambassador to the UN. Aboutalebi was a member of a student group which held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days during the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran. But whereas the Obama administration appeared ready to quietly swallow this insulting appointment, on Monday the US Senate unanimously passed a bill, backed by Ted Cruz and Chuck Schumer, barring Aboutalebi from entering the US. And although it is unclear whether Obama will sign the bill into law, on Friday the Obama administration announced that it would not provide Aboutalebi with a visa.

Today, in an editorial entitled "Inching Forward With Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/opinion/inching-forward-with-iran.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), The New York Times seeks to downplay the denial of Aboutalebi's visa and encourage Iran and the US to continue to seek an agreement limiting Iran's nuclear weapons development program. The Times writes:

"There is no doubt that the negotiations between the major powers and Iran over its nuclear program have been productive. All the nations involved — the United States, Britain, France, China, Germany, Iran, even Russia — appear committed to reaching a deal that will go beyond November’s interim agreement and produce a permanent one. The chief negotiators completed a third round of talks in Vienna on Wednesday and plan to meet again on May 13, after which they expect to begin drafting actual text. They hope to wrap it all up by July 20."

No doubt that the negotiations have been productive? Oh really? As reported in a January 23 CNN article entitled "Iranian official on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything'" (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/politics/iran-us-nuclear/) by Tom Cohen:

"Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted Wednesday that the Obama administration mischaracterizes concessions by his side in the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, telling CNN in an exclusive interview that 'we did not agree to dismantle anything.'

Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

'The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments' under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum."

Does that sound productive to you? No way. Wrap up an agreement by July 20? John Kerry and Catherine Ashton are dreaming. Remarkably, even the Times editorial acknowledges the implacable fervent opposition of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei to any such arrangement:

"In a final deal, the powers want Iran to permanently pare back its nuclear activities so that it will not be able to quickly produce a nuclear bomb. That would mean reducing its centrifuges and curbing operations at facilities that are designed to produce nuclear fuel. In return, there would be substantially more sanctions relief for Iran’s battered economy. Despite the obvious benefits, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sounded pretty implacable on Wednesday when he said, 'We will not cede any of our gains in nuclear research and development.'"

And today we are being told by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-exceeds-interim-deals-oil-export-limits/):

"Iran is exporting much more crude oil than the one million barrels per day to which it agreed as part of an interim deal with Western nations over its nuclear program, the International Energy Agency says, with the Islamic Republic’s actual exports far exceeding that limit."

The negotiations between the major powers and Iran over its nuclear program have been productive? They certainly have been productive for Iran.

The Times editorial continues:

"Meanwhile, hard-line forces on both sides have been working to undermine any deal. Israel and some members of Congress are insisting that Iran must abandon all nuclear enrichment activities, even for nonweapons purposes. That would be ideal, but it is unrealistic, and insisting on it would scuttle any chance of an agreement. The hard-liners know that, which puts them in the curious position of making a huge political fuss about Iran’s nuclear program while blocking any realistic diplomatic solution. This could cause problems for President Obama as he tries to push talks forward."

Of course, according to the Times, an intransigent Israel is responsible for seeking an end to Iran's nuclear enrichment activities, which could possibly also be used for nonweapons purposes. No mention, of course, of Saudi opposition to Iran's nuclear aspiration. Such enrichment might be used by Iran for nonweapons purposes? How reassuring!

The Times editorial concludes, in conciliatory fashion, regarding the denial of Aboutalebi's visa:

"As the host for the United Nations, the United States is supposed to admit whomever a country designates as its ambassador, barring a direct national security threat. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president, were all allowed to visit. Still, the appointment was a real misstep by President Hassan Rouhani. It’s hard to believe he does not know how acutely the embassy takeover affected Americans and did not realize that he was handing hard-liners a new issue. But none of this should divert the two sides from pushing hard to secure a final nuclear deal.

If the major powers and Iran can do that, they will create an opportunity for dealing with other important challenges, including Afghanistan, drug trafficking, Syria and Iran’s support for extremist groups. The consequences of failure are equally enormous."

Yes, Rouhani was trying to bitch slap President Obama, but the US Senate wouldn't let him get away with it. Continue to allow a delusional Kerry and a moronic Ashton to play at negotiating a deal to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and terminate Iranian support of terror organizations? Play as they might, Supreme Leader Khamenei has no intention whatsoever of acceding to their fanciful wishes.

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?