John Kerry: Sanctions Regime Cannot Be Enforced If Talks With Iran Fail

US Secretary of State John Kerry has effectively admitted that the US is agreeing to all of Iran's demands in its current negotiations over Tehran's nuclear development program, because its P5+1 partners are prepared to agree to Khamenei's demands. As reported by Iran's PressTV, Kerry told the Global Chief of Missions meeting at the State Department in Washington on Wednesday, March 25:

"What happens if, as our critics propose, we just walk away from a plan that the rest of the world were to deem to be reasonable? That could happen. Well, the talks would collapse. Iran would have the ability to go right back spinning its centrifuges and enriching to the degree they want, if they want, if that's what they choose. And the sanctions will not hold, because those other people who deem the plan to be reasonable will walk away and say, 'You do your thing, we’ll do ours.'"

Or in other words, American foreign policy is now being dictated by Russia, China and European corporations hungry for renewed trade with Iran.

Not surprisingly, this dramatic revelation is not being covered by any of America's leading media outlets.

Obama Agrees to Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif's Ploy to Avoid Congressional Approval of Nuclear Weapons Deal

You will recall how, in August 2013, Obama demanded Congressional approval of a military strike against Bashar al-Assad to effect his "red line" involving the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Obama didn't need that approval, and in fact, didn't want that approval.

Obama does, however, want to reach a deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, providing the mullahs with a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (seven years if Tehran has its way in the negotiations), and he's now hell-bent on avoiding Congressional approval of any such deal. As reported by Iran's PressTV:

"US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said that the United Nations Security Council would endorse any final nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group.

'We would anticipate that, if we're able to reach a joint comprehensive Plan of Action between the P5+1 and Iran, an endorsement vote would be held by the UN Security Council,' Psaki told reporters on Friday."

Obama's determination to take the deal to the UN instead of Congress is in keeping with the demand of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. As reported in a Bloomberg article entitled "Iran Wants UN Security Council to Ban Future U.S. Sanctions" by Sangwon Yoon:

"Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says he’s counting on the United Nations Security Council to prevent U.S. lawmakers from overturning any deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

An agreement reached by the U.S. and five other global powers with Iran would be approved in a UN Security Council resolution, making it 'an international agreement and binding for all states,' Zarif said in an interview in the Iranian weekly magazine Seda. 'The current and future governments of Iran and the U.S. will be bound by its provisions.'

Zarif’s assertion has added fresh fuel to the dispute between President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers over his authority to commit to a deal with Iran, while contributing to confusion over what role the UN might play."

This is the same Zarif who one week earlier called for the annihilation of the "Netanyahu regime."

Can it get any worse?

Iran Again Expresses Satisfaction Over Obama's Nomination of Hagel

Earlier this month, Iran's Fars News Agency informed us in an article entitled "Chuck Hagel's Nomination: Iran Hopes for Practical Changes in US Foreign Policy" (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107134107) that Tehran is pleased by Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel as America's next secretary of defense. Next, Iran's PressTV declared that Hagel is "anti-Israeli" (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/05/281902/antiisraeli-tops-obama-pentagon-choice/). Today, in its lead online article entitled "Hagel remarks on Israel, Iran controversial" (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1788426), Iran's Mehr News is telling us:

"Political analysts in US believe that Hagel, learning lessons from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars, and US strategic miscalculations in Central Asia and Africa, had come to believe that Washington is far from starting a new adventurist enterprise, with the result being no more than economic disaster and dwindled American hegemony in international scene, if US launches a war without the consent of international community. Accordingly, Hagel would keep US at bay from adventurism about Iran, and would try bringing US policies to convergence with its allies in line with Obama’s policies. This possibility has sparked the Zionist lobby (AIPAC) and its allied representatives in Congress, who believed that Obama, with Hagel on the Pentagon, would not pose the Iran strike as a serious option.

. . . .

US political circles had it that in meeting with Obama, Hagel has said that Benyamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, do not appreciate US helps, and has become isolated as the result of political extremism."

Obama is placing pressure on Iran to curtail to its nuclear weapons development program? Yeah, right. The mullahs have received Obama's message loud and clear.

Nicholas Kristof, "In Defense of Hagel for Defense": How About an Excellent Woman Instead?

The New York Times has gone to war in order to obtain Senate approval for Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. Thomas Friedman wrote a sordid op-ed on Christmas, blasting opponents of Hagel as "disgusting" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/thomas-friedman-give-chuck-chance.html). This was immediately followed by a New York Times guest op-ed by James Besser (Who is he?), asking us not to allow "pro-Israel extremists sink Chuck Hagel (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/james-besser-dont-let-pro-israel.html). Yesterday, we were treated to Myra MacPherson's New York Times guest op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/opinion/chuck-hagel-under-attack-in-vietnam-and-on-capitol-hill.html?_r=0), telling us that Hagel needs to be secretary of defense because he was a Vietnam War hero. And today, we have Nicholas Kristof, in a Times op-ed entitled "In Defense of Hagel for Defense" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/opinion/chuck-hagel-under-attack-in-vietnam-and-on-capitol-hill.html?_r=0), again reminding us that Hagel is a Vietnam War hero and assuring us that Hagel is not an anti-Semite.

Observe:

• Unlike The Washington Post, The New York Times has yet to publish an opinion piece opposing Hagel's nomination. Apparently, Andrew Rosenthal is of the belief that balance is not required on his editorial page.

• Not one of the Times's opinion pieces praises Hagel's intellect or accomplishments as a US senator.

• Not one of the Times's opinion pieces examines in any depth Hagel's complacency toward Iran, which regularly calls for the extermination of Israel; Hagel's call for talks with Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis; or Hagel's refusal to sign a Senate letter calling upon the EU to brand Hezbollah, which was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 American soldiers, as a terrorist organization.

In his op-ed of today's date, Kristof begins:

"Critics are pounding President Obama’s choice for defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, as soft on Iran, anti-military and even anti-Semitic. This is a grotesque caricature of a man who would make a terrific defense secretary.

It’s true that Hagel harbors a healthy skepticism about deploying American troops. That’s because he also harbors shrapnel in his chest from Vietnam and appreciates the human costs when Pentagon officials move pins on maps."

Hagel is indeed a Vietnam War hero; however, there are thousands of other wounded American veterans who are smarter than Chuck and better equipped to manage the bureaucracy of the Defense Department (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagels-vietnam-experience-is-not-much-of-a-qualification-for-defense-secretary/2013/01/09/6ce0089a-59b4-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html?hpid=z2).

Hagel is not an anti-Semite? I have never met Hagel and can't make that determination, but then Kristof also does not claim to know this man on an intimate basis. Kristof tells us that Hagel's reference to a "Jewish lobby" is not enough to brand Hagel as an anti-Semite. Yet, Kristof makes a point of not referring to Hagel's response to efforts to keep the USO open in Haifa, i.e., "Let the Jews pay for it" (see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mr-hagel-and-jews_693993.html). At a minimum, this demeaning comment should bestir concern.

Kristof goes on to say:

"As for Iran, Hagel will need to sound more hawkish in public to mesh with the administration, and it is useful for Iran to worry about a military strike. But I hope that Hagel, in private, continues to be cautious. Obama has been painting himself in a corner so that if a nuclear deal with Tehran isn’t reached, he would have to order bombings sometime in 2013 or 2014. A skeptic at the Pentagon would be a useful addition to that debate."

Or in other words, Hagel should now disguise his opposition to any confrontation with Iran, because it is useful that Iran remain worried. The problem with this inane argument is that Iran is fully aware of Hagel's position and has endorsed his appointment as US Secretary of Defense (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/iran-endorses-obamas-nomination-of.html#comment-form). Iran's Press TV has even declared that Hagel is "anti-Israeli" (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/05/281902/antiisraeli-tops-obama-pentagon-choice/).

Discussion by Kristof of Hagel's disparaging comments regarding gays? Not a chance.

Women in Obama's cabinet? Why should Kristof care?

Mention of the fact that Obama is now seeking to populate his cabinet with something considerably less than the best and the brightest, i.e., Hagel, Kerry and Brennan? No way. I don't care for Hillary Clinton, but intellectually, there is no denying that she can run circles around Kerry, who referred to Assad as his "dear friend." Brennan? Peculiar how when Brennan was listed as a candidate for the position of CIA director four years ago, he walked away owing to questions regarding interrogation of terror suspects while Bush was president.

Thanks, Obama, for drafting these mediocre White men to do your bidding. It just can't get any worse.

Hypocrisy on Kristof's part? You bet!

Iran's Press TV, "US economy too weak for war against Iran: American diplomat"

All of the major news agencies in Iran are quoting an article from Iran's Press TV entitled "US economy too weak for war against Iran: American diplomat" (http://presstv.com/detail/2012/07/08/249890/us-economy-too-fragile-for-iran-war/). According to the PressTV article:

"US Ambassador to Switzerland Donald Beyer has ruled out the likelihood of Washington’s military option against Tehran, given the exacerbating economic woes in the United States.

In an interview with the Swiss daily Der Bund, Beyer pointed out that the US overall debt has exceeded USD 16 trillion and the country’s unemployment rate stands at 8.2 percent.

Noting that the low-spending level in the US budget over the past two years has been unprecedented since the World War II, the American envoy went on to say that there is an implicit consensus among Democrats and Republicans that the country’s military budget needs to be reduced.

With 900 military bases abroad, the US has the highest military expenditure in the world; however the matter is no longer acceptable, he added.

Beyer contended that under the prevailing circumstances, no one considers war with Iran as an option and ruled out the possibility of another Cold War in the future."

Well, not surprisingly this is not what Beyer said in the interview with Der Bund (http://www.derbund.ch/ausland/amerika/In-den-USA-ist-man-auf-viele-Arten-frei-zu-tun-was-man-will/story/23305769). Whereas Beyer does refer to a difficult economic situation in the US and consensus concerning the need to reduce the US military budget, Beyer does not say that America's weak economy is "too weak for war against Iran." Beyer is quoted in German as saying:

"Niemand erwartet, dass aus dem Konflikt mit dem Iran ein Krieg wie im Irak wird, und es wird daraus auch kaum einen neuen Kalten Krieg geben."

Or, translating the German back into English:

"Nobody expects from the conflict with Iran a war as in Iraq, and there will hardly come from it a new Cold War."

But although Press TV has obviously misreported Beyer's Der Bund interview, is it the job of the US ambassador to Switzerland to categorize a possible future conflict with Iran at a time when Tehran is threatening to sink US aircraft carriers, close the Strait of Hormuz and destroy 35 surrounding US military bases?

I suppose you're best off asking Obama.

Roman Halter, of Blessed Memory

The obscenity of Holocaust denial is regrettably alive and kicking. Earlier this week, Iran's Press TV denounced the decision of Turkish public television to broadcast a Holocaust documentary (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/223743.html):

"Turkey's move can be considered as controversial and unacceptable since Muslim nations hold that Holocaust believers have lost touch with the reality and that western governments are using the saga to play the role of innocent victims.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has on several occasions called for a historical research to find realities about the Holocaust. His remarks have sparked outrage among the pro-Israeli powers, which labeled him a Holocaust denier.

Prominent American scholar Norman Finkelstein argues in his book The Holocaust Industry (2000) that many exploit the myth of Holocaust as an 'ideological weapon', saying this is also the case with Israel, 'one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, [can] cast itself as a victim state' in order to garner 'immunity to criticism.'

. . . .

A French court fined author Roger Garaudy $20,000 in 1998, for questioning the Nazi Holocaust during the World War II.

The French scholar was convicted of challenging crimes against humanity and of racial libel.

In his book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics, Garaudy argued that Hitler's killing of the Jews could not be described as genocide.

He also questioned whether gas chambers were used for mass slaughter."

Ahmadinejad has called for a historical inquest to "find realities about the Holocaust"? This monster should begin by reading Roman Halter's autobiographical book, "Roman's Journey" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Roman%20Halter). As summarized by its jacket cover, this gripping work recounts how Roman Halter, a Polish schoolboy, miraculously survived the Nazi nightmare years:

"Roman Halter is an optimistic and boisterous schoolboy in 1939, when he and his family gather behind their net curtains to watch the Voldeutsch neighbors in their small town in western Poland greet the arrival of Hitler's armies with kisses and swatstika flags. Within days, the family home has been seized, 12-year-old Roman is a slave of the local SS chief, and, returning from an errand, silently watches his Jewish classmates being bayoneted to death by soldiers at the edge of town. And there begins the journey - first into the Lodz ghetto, then on to Auschwitz, then Stutthof and a firebombed Dresden - a remarkable six-year journey through some of the darkest caverns of Nazi Germany, which claimed the lives of every other member of his family and the 800-strong community of his boyhood."

As noted by Sir Martin Gilbert in the book's preface, Roman Halter near the end of the war was sheltered by "a courageous German couple, the husband of whom was killed after the war by his neighbors for hiding Jews." It should come as no surprise that latent anti-Semitism still affects 20 percent of Germans (see: http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=255105).

Perhaps if President Obama were to read this book, he would better understand Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's thoughts and motivations. Politics aside, Netanyahu is faced with the dilemma of preserving the existence of Israel, which faces an arsenal of 200,000 missiles (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=256152), amassed by the allies of Iran -- Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Islamic Jihad in Gaza -- and Iran itself, whose president demands that Israel "be wiped off the face of the map." According to Israeli intelligence experts, Iran would be willing to sacrifice half of its population as part of an effort to eradicate Israel, i.e. perpetrate a second Holocaust.

Sadly, Roman Halter passed away last week. I knew Roman Halter, who moved to England after the war, became a noted architect, teacher of architecture, author and artist, renowned for his stained-glass windows. Roman Halter, who never lost his passion for life, also built a family, and I am privileged to be the friend of his remarkable children.

I am now rereading "Roman's Journey." I strongly urge that those who read this blog take the time to read this monumental book.

My love and condolences go out to the bereaved family of this courageous, resilient and extraordinary man.

Gary Sick, "A Stealth Engagement of Iran?": Tergiversations

"Tergiversation," according to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tergiversation):

1. evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement: equivocation

In an article entitled "Frustrated US rambles on Iran: Gary Sick" (http://presstv.com/detail/223089.html), Iran's Press TV refers us to an article written by Gary Sick, entitled "A Stealth Engagement of Iran?" (http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2012/01/17/stealth-engagement-iran), which was published by The World Policy Institute. Yes, it is of course significant that Iran has chosen to highlight this opinion piece.

In his article, Gary Sick, "an adjunct professor of Middle East politics at Columbia's School of International & Public Affairs" and "the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis," observes recent "tergiversations in U.S. policy pronouncements": Both Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have coupled denunciations and threats over Iran's ongoing efforts to attain nuclear weapons with calls for renewed negotiations and avoidance of any armed conflict. Sick ponders whether these conflicting declarations reflect "pure chaos and incompetence in the White House," or whether the White House is engaged in a highly sophisticated attempt to manage three problems:

• Congress, which in an election year, has maneuvered Obama into signing the Defense Authorization Bill with the latest sanctions rider, amounting, according to Sick, to "a tacit declaration of war."
• Obama's desire to avoid war and return to negotiations.
• Netanyahu's threats "to strike unilaterally if necessary" and to use those threats "to keep the situation at a constant crisis pitch, while pressing for the most extreme sanctions."

According to Sick, "if you throw enough anti-Iran dust in the air, you may defuse any concerted attack—figuratively or otherwise."

So is there chaos in the White House, or, is there indeed a master plan to talk through both sides of your mouth in order to preseve the status quo?

Indeed, there has been much doublespeak emerging from the Obama White House (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-and-obama-administration.html), and Obama, the Procrastinator-in-Chief, would prefer to avoid a conflagration. However, Obama will also do anything and everything to be re-elected, and this single consideration will determine Obama's policy toward Iran over the coming months. The short-term effect of an increase in the price of oil on the U.S. economy and the receptiveness of the US electorate to bellicose statements issued by Romney and Gingrich, painting Obama as a patsy, are all being monitored by the West Wing.

One final observation: Sick's conjecture that the leak, alleging that Mossad personnel, pretending to be CIA agents, recruited Iranian dissidents, was linked to cancellation of Austere Challenge, a joint US/Israeli anti-missile exercise scheduled for April, is not grounded in reality.