Thomas Friedman, "Win, Lose, but No Compromise": Shiites and Sunnis?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Win, Lose, but No Compromise," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman begins by asking, "Are we all just Shiites and Sunnis now?" Wow, I thought to myself after reading this query, a Times columnist is finally willing to consider Turkey's armored invasion of Syria and the battles it is has been waging there with the Kurds, America's most potent ally on the ground in its war against ISIS. I was also certain that Tom would bestow upon us his benighted wisdom concerning Iran's recent placement of a Russian-made S-300 air defense battery to protect its Fordo nuclear facility. (If Iran has no intention of violating its unsigned nuclear agreement with Obama, why should there be any need to install such a sophisticated missile system at this nuclear complex built into a mountain?) But in fact "Shiites and Sunnis" was only a lead-in to Friedman's take on the state of American politics:

"More and more of our politics resembles the core sectarian conflict in the Middle East between these two branches of Islam, and that is not good. Because whether you’re talking about Shiites and Sunnis — or Iranians and Saudis, Israelis and Palestinians, Turks and Kurds — a simple binary rule dominates their politics: 'I am strong, why should I compromise? I am weak, how can I compromise?'"

Given the unwillingness of Democrats and Republicans to compromise, Friedman goes on to ask:

"How will we improve Obamacare? How will we invest in infrastructure? How will we recreate the compromise on immigration that a few brave Republican and Democratic legislators tried in 2013? How will we get corporate tax reform, a carbon tax and some fiscal policy that we so desperately need to propel the economy and control the deficit?"

Improve Obamacare? Needless to say, no mention by Tom of Aetna's decision to eliminate a vast majority of its Obamacare business. In fact, more and more commentators are telling us that Obamacare has entered into a "death spiral."

How will we invest in infrastructure? Good question. By the time Obama leaves office, US debt will have reached some $20 trillion, and, as we were recently told by the Congressional Budget Office:

"In fiscal year 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase in relation to economic output for the first time since 2009, CBO estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged—an assumption underlying CBO’s baseline projections—deficits would continue to mount over the next 10 years, and debt held by the public would rise from its already high level.

CBO’s estimate of the deficit for 2016 has increased since the agency issued its previous estimates in March, primarily because revenues are now expected to be lower than earlier anticipated. In contrast, the cumulative deficit through 2026 is smaller in CBO’s current baseline projections than the shortfall projected in March, chiefly because the agency now projects lower interest rates and thus lower outlays for interest payments on federal debt. Nevertheless, by 2026, the deficit is projected to be considerably larger relative to gross domestic product (GDP) than its average over the past 50 years."

Or stated otherwise, it's not only Obamacare that's in a death spiral.

Obama Lobbies for Nuclear Deal With Iran: What Isn't the President Telling Democrats?

Tweet

"You shall have no other gods beside Me."

- Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3)

Obama and his minions are lobbying hard for the president's nuclear deal with Iran, and in furtherance of the agreement, we are being presented with lists of scientists for the deal, generals for the deal, Hollywood Jews for the deal, and now American rabbis for the deal. Hollywood Jews? American Rabbis? Of course! What does it matter that 78 percent of Israelis believe the nuclear deal will "endanger Israel" and 71 percent think the deal will "bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability"? What does it matter that both Netanyahu and Israeli opposition leader Herzog both oppose the deal?

In a New York Times article entitled "Lobbying Fight Over Iran Nuclear Deal Centers on Democrats," Julie Hirschfeld Davis informs us:

"From his rented vacation home on Martha’s Vineyard with sweeping views of the Atlantic Ocean, President Obama has been making phone calls to Democratic members of Congress, trying to rally support for the nuclear deal with Iran that faces a vote next month.

'If you support the deal, we’d like you to make that clear,' he tells the lawmakers, according to a White House official who would describe the private calls only on condition of anonymity. 'And if you still have concerns, we want to be able to answer those questions.'"

Well, I'm willing to bet that Obama is not telling fellow Democrats that "Any individual, out of IAEA’s Inspection group, who is not approved by the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot enter the country as the agency’s inspector." After all, this would make a mockery of Obama's contention that the deal "contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program."

And then there is Obama's talking point concerning possible military options: "Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it's been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective." However, as we are now being informed by Reuters's Sam Wilkin:

"Iran will sign a contract with Russia next week to buy four S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, the Iranian defence minister said on Tuesday, bringing Tehran closer to acquiring an advanced air defence capability.

Russian state arms producer Almaz-Antey in June said it would supply Iran with a modernised version of the S-300, among the world's most capable air defence systems, once a commercial agreement was reached."

Or in a nutshell, thanks to Russia, Obama's options will no longer be easily implementable, if at all.

Yes, the president has been lying, but why should that matter to acolytes of Obama, the omniscient and all-powerful, who always knows best.

Obama Caves to Khamenei: Amenable to Immediate Cessation of Sanctions and Apathetic to Supply of S-300 Air Defense Systems

Quite honestly, I didn't see this coming so soon: Speaking at a joint news conference with Italian Prime Minister Renzi at the White House on Friday, Obama declared that the US is willing to discuss the immediate cessation of sanctions against Iran, and expressed indifference to the supply of Russian S-300 air defense systems to Tehran. As reported by The Times of Israel:

"US President Barack Obama on Friday left open the door to “creative negotiations” in response to Iran’s demand that punishing sanctions be immediately lifted as part of a nuclear deal, even though the initial agreement calls for the penalties to be removed over time.

Asked whether he would definitively rule out lifting sanctions at once as part of a final deal aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Obama said he didn’t want to get ahead of negotiators in how to work through the potential sticking point. He said his main concern is making sure that if Iran violates an agreement, sanctions can quickly be reinstated — the so-called 'snap back' provision.

. . . .

The president also weighed in on Russia’s announcement earlier this week that it would lift a five-year ban on delivery of anti-aircraft missiles, giving the Islamic republic’s military a strong deterrent against any air attack. The White House initially objected, but Obama said, 'I’m frankly surprised that it held this long.'"

A "snap back" provision? Obama knows that both Russia and China will prevent a future American president from reimposing sanctions against Iran, whether by way of seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution or otherwise. Meanwhile, the lifting of all sanctions means that billions of dollars will instantly flow to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Obama is surprised that the ban on Russian supply of S-300 systems "held this long"? In fact the sale by Russia with the American president's tacit approval is very in much in keeping with Obama's 2012 pledge to Putin via Medvedev that after his reelection, he would have "more flexibility."

Why has Obama decided to become the first American president to sponsor terrorism, albeit in a roundabout fashion? As I suggested in a prior blog entry, Obama sincerely believes that enfeeblement of Israel by means of empowering an implacable foe, i.e. Iran, can bring peace to the Middle East. And then there is also the matter of this narcissist's "legacy."

Now we can only wait and see if there is a sufficient number of Democrats in Congress with the courage to oppose Obama, who has shed his last vestige of decorative moderation.

New York Times Editorial, "A Reckless Act in the Senate on Iran": Obama Livid With Corker

Obama is furious with the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee for reaching a bipartisan compromise over Bob Corker's bill, which will require Congress to approve or disapprove a final deal involving Iranian nuclear development. How do we know the president is so angry? Because the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration, The New York Times, has expressed his resentment. In an editorial entitled "A Reckless Act in the Senate on Iran," the Times declares:

"Congress has formally muscled its way into President Obama’s negotiations with Iran, creating new and potentially dangerous uncertainties for an agreement that offers the best chance of restraining that country’s nuclear program.

. . . .

there is no constitutional imperative requiring Congress to insert itself into the negotiations, which are the only effective means to block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

Of course, it would have been appropriate for the Times to mention that Obama has acknowledged that after 13 years Iran will be free to develop a nuclear arsenal, and any "restraint" is temporary.

The Times also tells us:

"Even if Congress barred Mr. Obama from waiving American sanctions, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council could lift the sanctions they imposed, thus undercutting the American decision."

Remarkably, there is no mention in this propaganda piece of Russia's decision, in the aftermath of the Lausanne "framework understanding," to sell advanced S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran. Supply of these missiles to Iran will complicate any future air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. But more to the point, Russia is already waiving American sanctions, although a final agreement with Iran has yet to be reached.

How sad that we have reached the point where The New York Times is incapable of anything other than obsequious propaganda.

Russia to Delay Shipment of S-300 Surface-to-Air Missiles to Iran

Interfax reports that Russia is indefinitely delaying shipment of advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran. Iran has been eagerly awaiting delivery of the missiles, which would have meaningfully bolstered its defenses against attack upon its nuclear installations. According to Interfax:

"Russia will deliver S-300 surface-to-air missiles systems to Iran after the technical flaws uncovered have been fixed, the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service's First Deputy Director Alexander Fomin has announced.

'The delay is due to technical problems. The systems will be delivered when these problems have been resolved,' Fomin told Interfax-AVN on Wednesday.

Fomin is leader of a Russian delegation to the Defexpo-India arms show.

No details were given on what kind of technical problems are involved, or how long it will take to fix them."

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=147429

Now you know why Netanyahu was smiling in his photographs with Putin and Medvedev (see prior blog entry). This is a meaningful coup for Netanyahu and a serious setback for Iran, still susceptible to attack from above and forced to rethink its negotiating position with the U.S. and its allies.

Peculiar how Obama never dreamed of obtaining this concession from Russia. Or is it because Obama's advisers had already reconciled themselves to a nuclear Iran . . .