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?

Maureen Dowd, "Little R-S-P-E-C-T": Does Obama Wear Mom Jeans? Does Putin Inject Botox? Does Dowd Inject Botox?

Okay, America's president seems to have difficulty spelling without a teleprompter, but does Obama wear mom jeans? Does Putin inject Botox into his forehead? Does Dowd inject Botox into her forehead? These and other momentous questions are raised by Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Little R-S-P-E-C-T" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-little-r-s-p-e-c-t.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0) and the picture accompanying her column. Concerning Obama's feeble response to Putin's invasion of the Ukraine and the mom jeans issue, Dowd writes:

"Sarah Palin, who seems ever more viperish, deployed her Yoda syntax with Sean Hannity: 'People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.'

Actually, the jeans the president wore in the Oval Office, talking to Putin on the phone last weekend, looked good."

Well, let's have another look at the picture, released by the White House, depicting Obama in serious discussion with Putin after his West Wing staff finally opted to allow him to learn of Putin's infraction:

Okay, here we have Obama, in denim and matching button-down shirt, one arm akimbo, sleeves carefully rolled up almost to the elbows, discussing with Putin the Russian invasion of Crimea. I don't know the make of his watch. There is no pen in sight. There are no loose papers on his desk. Query: Does Obama actually ever work in the Oval Office?

But more to the point, does this picture project power? Or is the following picture of Pajama Boy more imposing?:

My guess is that Putin would be more afraid of Pajama Boy.

But enough about imagery (Maureen and the White House are responsible for raising the topic, not I). Instead, let's focus on America's foreign affairs. Dowd seems to think that Obama's swift non-response to the Ukraine crisis improved upon his awkward vacillation involving Assad's use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Dowd tells us:

"And his Russia response is a positive contrast with Syria, where Obama came across as naval-gazing and feckless when he dithered and then drew a 'red line' against Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons. He was still explaining to the press why he had decided on military action while Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Brits were yanking the rug out from under him."

But in fact, Obama's reaction to Putin and Assad were one and the same. In both instances, he and his friends, John Kerry and Susan Rice, employed variants of the same "tough" language:

"All options remain on the table!"

In fact, there have been no options on the table. No options have existed and no strategies or shelf plans have been devised to deal with malefactors in Obama's imaginary post-Cold War world renaissance, devoid of villains. And even if options and a strategy had been readied, the Procrastinator-in-Chief would seek to avoid any provocation during his second term in office, as he, assisted by his weak-minded friend Chuck Hagel, dismantles the American military to fund Obamacare.

Obama not tough? How can that be? Prime Minister Netanyahu was in Washington last week, and the president sternly warned his Israeli ally via Jeffrey Goldberg (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/new-york-times-editorial-israels-choice.html) that his opposition to a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was dangerous. Regrettably, no one from the US State Department had informed Obama that Netanyahu favors a two state solution. For example, as reported by Arutz Sheva last April (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167201#.UxgQsZtWHcs):

"Speaking during a reception for foreign diplomats in honor of Israel’s Independence Day, Netanyahu said, 'We are committed to our aspiration for peace, a peace that will be based on the principle of two states for two peoples, a Jewish state alongside a demilitarized Palestinian state.

'But in order for the peace to last it must be anchored in security,' he added. 'The State of Israel must be able to defend itself by itself; its security will be a main component of any future peace agreement.'"

Well, at least Obama was able to deflect some of the criticism involving his feeble response to Putin by slapping at Netanyahu, a true friend of the United States.

Dowd's opinion piece also fails to mention recent developments in Turkey, which have offered Obama multiple opportunities to exhibit mettle and ethics.

Do you remember Obama's State of the Union address? Did you hear any mention by the president of his pre-election promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide by Turkey? No way! You see, autocratic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in the past was declared by Obama to be one of his best overseas friends (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2013/05/16/Erdogan-and-Obama-Best-friends-no-more.html).

The radical Islamization of Turkey and the end of that country's civil liberties? As reported by the Committee to Protect Journalists at the end of 2013 (http://cpj.org/reports/2013/12/second-worst-year-on-record-for-jailed-journalists.php):

"For the second consecutive year, Turkey was the world’s leading jailer of journalists, followed closely by Iran and China."

Even a whimper of protest from Obama? No way!

Now, after the dissemination of a recording in which Erdogan purportedly tells his son to dispose of large sums of money following police raids connected to a burgeoning corruption scandal, Erdogan is threatening to shut down Facebook and YouTube in Turkey (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-turkey-erdogan-idUSBREA2609A20140307).

Again, not a word from Obama.

Why doesn't the world show a little more R-S-P-E-C-T for America's president? Apparently, even the president ultimately reaps what he sows.

James B. Stewart , "Why Russia Can't Afford Another Cold War": Sorry, Obama Already Lost

Do your remember your playground days? Do you you remember how, when the playground bully picked upon a weaker child, the weaker child inevitably responded, "Do that again and I'll . . ." Well, the Obama administration has devised its own variant upon that feeble playground warning, which is being repeatedly sounded by Obama, Kerry and Rice in response to multiple crises across the globe to no effect whatsoever. No matter where in the world there is trouble, we are told by Obama and friends:

"All options remain on the table!"

In fact, there are no options are on the table. No options exist and no strategies or shelf plans have been devised to deal with malefactors in this would-be post-Cold War world. And even if options and a strategy had been readied, the Procrastinator-in-Chief would seek to avoid any provocation during his second term in office, as he dismantles the American army to fund Obamacare.

In a new item entitled "Why Russia Can't Afford Another Cold War" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/business/why-russia-cant-afford-another-cold-war.html?_r=0) by James B. Stewart, in his "Common Sense" column, which is today prominently positioned on the home page of The New York Times, we are basically told that a renewal of the Cold War by Russian president Vladimir Putin doesn't make sense. Stewart explains:

"Russia is far more exposed to market fluctuations than many countries, since it owns a majority stake in a number of the country’s largest companies.

. . . .

Many Russian companies and banks are fully integrated into the global financial system.

. . . .

The old Soviet Union, in stark contrast, was all but impervious to foreign economic or business pressure, thanks in part to an ideological commitment to self-sufficiency."

But what Stewart does not consider is that Putin's Ukraine operation was the equivalent of a "blitzkrieg," undertaken overnight and again catching Obama with what Sarah Palin labels his "mom jeans" down. This battle is already over and lost.

The Russian stock market? Like other stock markets across the globe, it will now recover, until ex-KGB officer Putin's next adventure. Unbeknownst to Obama and friends, no one ever said that the Cold War must be replayed according to the same rules as the 1960's.

Stewart continues:

"By contrast, today 'Russia is too weak and vulnerable economically to go to war,' Mr. [Anders] Aslund said. 'The Kremlin’s fundamental mistake has been to ignore its economic weakness and dependence on Europe. Almost half of Russia’s exports go to Europe, and three-quarters of its total exports consist of oil and gas. The energy boom is over, and Europe can turn the tables on Russia after its prior gas supply cuts in 2006 and 2009. Europe can replace this gas with liquefied natural gas, gas from Norway and shale gas. If the European Union sanctioned Russia’s gas supply to Europe, Russia would lose $100 billion or one-fifth of its export revenues, and the Russian economy would be in rampant crisis.'"

Europe is not dependent upon Russian gas? Oh really? As reported in a November 2013 Center for Strategic & International Studies article entitled "The Russia-EU Gas Relationship: A partnership of necessity" by Edward C. Chow and Anne Hudson (https://csis.org/publication/russia-eu-gas-relationship-partnership-necessity):

"Russia, meanwhile, accounts for 34% of EU natural gas imports, making it the lead supplier of natural gas to the EU. While European demand growth will likely remain weak, import dependence is slated to increase due to the decline in European gas production, meaning that the EU will have to rely ever more heavily on exporters such as Russia. Additionally, the infrastructure needed both to integrate the European energy market and to develop European LNG import capacity is costly and has a long implementation timeline. In this context, the stated aim to achieve such integration by 2014 appears unlikely to be achieved. Even more to the point, the current long-term contracts between Russia and the EU are not set to expire until 2020, meaning supply is locked in for nearly another decade."

Given rampant unemployment and world economic weakness, don't expect European capitals to be sanctioning Russia anytime soon and disturbing their existing energy order.

Stewart goes on to say:

"During the Cold War, there were few, if any, Russian billionaires. Today, there are 111, according to Forbes magazine’s latest rankings, and Russia ranks third in the number of billionaires, behind the United States and China. The economist noted that the billionaire Russian elite — who are pretty much synonymous with Mr. Putin’s friends and allies — are the ones who would be severely affected by visa bans, which were imposed by President Obama on Thursday. Other penalties might include asset freezes."

Visa bans? These Russian oligarchs all have second passports. Asset freezes? A joke! We are currently witnessing how the Obama administration is busy dismantling existing economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for . . . coming to the table (with Putin's help) to negotiate a "framework" agreement, i.e. nothing.

And then all of this is capped off with Stewart's argument that Putin's interest is regional and not global:

"And while the Cold War was a global contest between Marxism and capitalism, there is today 'no real ideological component to the conflict except that Putin has become the personification of rejecting the West as a model,' Mr. [Strobe] Talbott said. 'He wants to promote a Eurasian community dominated by Moscow, but that’s not an ideology. Russia’s economy may be an example of crony capitalism, but it is capitalism. There’s not even a shadow of Marxism-Leninism now.'"

Only regional? How does Stewart explain Putin's heightening involvement in events in the Middle East, specifically in Iran and Syria, and his willingness to supply the murderous Assad regime with a steady flow of advanced weaponry?

Whereas President Obama might take much satisfaction from this "Common Sense" opinion piece, it makes little sense at all.

Obama, Turkey and Double Standards: Obama Silent As Erdogan Threatens to Shut Down Facebook and YouTube

Do you remember Obama's State of the Union address? Did you hear any mention by the president of his pre-election promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide by Turkey? No way! You see, autocratic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has been declared by Obama to be one of his best overseas friends (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2013/05/16/Erdogan-and-Obama-Best-friends-no-more.html).

The radical Islamization of Turkey and the end of that country's civil liberties? As reported by the Committee to Protect Journalists at the end of 2013 (http://cpj.org/reports/2013/12/second-worst-year-on-record-for-jailed-journalists.php):

"For the second consecutive year, Turkey was the world’s leading jailer of journalists, followed closely by Iran and China."

Even a whimper of protest from Obama? No way!

Now, after the dissemination of a recording in which Erdogan purportedly tells his son to dispose of large sums of money following police raids connected to a burgeoning corruption scandal, Erdogan is threatening to shut down Facebook and YouTube in Turkey (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-turkey-erdogan-idUSBREA2609A20140307).

Again, not a word from Obama.

You see, Obama is too busy castigating Israel for its "intransigence" involving the establishment of a Palestinian state (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/new-york-times-editorial-israels-choice.html).

But do you think Obama is bothered in the least by the fact that there are some 30 million stateless Kurds in Turkey (20 percent of Turkey's population), Iran, Iraq and Syria, who have been systematically oppressed by all of these countries? No way! Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, couldn't care less. Alleged Israeli inequities are all that matter to this dynamic duo.

Double standard or not, you can be certain that Obama will continue to obsess over and fulminate against his "nemesis" Netanyahu until America's president finally leaves office in January 2017.

New York Times Editorial, "Natural Gas as a Diplomatic Tool": Ignorance of Israeli Natural Gas Reserves

In an editorial entitled "Natural Gas as a Diplomatic Tool" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/opinion/natural-gas-as-a-diplomatic-tool.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0), The New York Times tells us that the US should punish Putin for his incursion into the Ukraine by exporting natural gas to Europe at the expense of Russia. The Times writes:

"Increasing natural gas exports could serve American foreign-policy interests in Europe, which gets about 30 percent of its gas from Russia. Countries like Germany and Ukraine are particularly vulnerable to supply disruptions that are politically driven."

However, the Times editorial also acknowledges that "the effects of such exports would likely be modest and wouldn’t be realized for several years."

But wait! Displaying customary ignorance, the Times fails to take into account Israel's growing natural gas reserves discovered off its Mediterranean coast, currently consisting of some 400 billion cu.m. of proven reserves that can be exported. Indeed, Europe imported some 167 billion cu.m. of natural gas from Russia in 2013, and Israeli reserves can only make a partial dent in this Russian cartel. Nonetheless, by helping to grow Israeli reserves and exports while concurrently increasing US exports, the Obama administration can certainly place meaningful pressure on Putin.

But wait again! The Obama administration would have us believe that there has not been a renewal of the Cold War. Moreover, the Obama administration and its semi-official mouthpiece, i.e. The New York Times (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/new-york-times-editorial-israels-choice.html), are busy castigating long-term ally Israel for alleged intransigence involving John Kerry's ridiculous Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative.

Yes, Obama's foreign policy is characterized by ignorance and  impotence, and his unimaginative little helpers on the editorial board of The New York Times are of little use to him, except for boosting his deflated ego.

New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s Choice": More Delusional Hatred of Israel

A few days ago, The Washington Post stated in the first sentence of an editorial entitled "President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?hpid=z6):

"FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality."

Indeed, the emperor has no clothes, but this did not prevent The New York Times, i.e. the semi-official organ of the Obama administration, from again lambasting Israel in an editorial entitled "Israel's Choice" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/opinion/israels-choice.html?hpw&rref=opinion).

Entirely in keeping with Obama's recent warning to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that time for a peace agreement is running out (see: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out), today's Times editorial declares:

"In Washington this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel sounded two different notes about peace negotiations with the Palestinians, which are nearing a critical juncture. In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, he enthusiastically advocated a peace agreement as a means to improve Israel’s ties with its Arab neighbors and 'catapult the region forward' on issues like health, energy and education.

But at other moments, a more familiar skepticism was apparent. He demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state with 'no excuses, no delays.' In response, a senior Palestinian official, Nabil Shaath, accused Mr. Netanyahu of putting an end to peace talks because Palestinians have already rejected that designation. (Palestinians recognize Israel as a state, but not as a Jewish state because they believe that that would undercut the rights of Palestinian refugees.) And, on Monday, at the White House, Mr. Netanyahu asserted that while Israel has worked hard to advance peace, the Palestinians have not.

. . . .

In remarkably blunt comments, Mr. Obama said that he had not heard a persuasive case for how Israel survives both as a democracy and a Jewish state absent a negotiated two-state solution, since in Israel and the West Bank 'there are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on.' He also warned that given Israel’s aggressive settlement construction — 2,534 housing units were begun in 2013 compared with 1,133 the previous year — Palestinians may soon decide that a contiguous state is impossible and America’s ability to help manage the consequences will be limited.

. . . .

In his Aipac speech, Mr. Netanyahu declared, 'I’m prepared to make a historic peace with our Palestinian neighbors.' But, really, what other just and durable choice does he have? What is his long-term answer for Israel, if not a two-state solution?"

Netanyahu of course has regularly voiced his support for a two-state solution. For example, as reported by Arutz Sheva last April (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167201#.UxgQsZtWHcs):

"Speaking during a reception for foreign diplomats in honor of Israel’s Independence Day, Netanyahu said, 'We are committed to our aspiration for peace, a peace that will be based on the principle of two states for two peoples, a Jewish state alongside a demilitarized Palestinian state.

'But in order for the peace to last it must be anchored in security,' he added. 'The State of Israel must be able to defend itself by itself; its security will be a main component of any future peace agreement.'"

Is Netanyahu's demand for security extreme? Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005, resulting in a blizzard of Palestinian rockets and missiles aimed at towns and cities in southern Israel and several costly military operations intended to quell the attacks.

The editorial appears to portray Netanyahu's demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as unreasonable, given acceptance by the Times of the Palestinian claim that such recognition would undercut the rights of Palestinian refugees. But why should this be the case? The new Palestinian state would be free to accept Palestinian refugees from Jordan (once comprising 77% of the Palestinian Mandate and where Palestinians amount to some 70% of the population), Syria and Lebanon. If it is demanded that Israel accept these refugees, this would end the negotiations.

Needless to say, the Times fails to acknowledge that Israel, which is approximately the size of New Jersey, already provided a home for some 600,000 Jewish refugees from the Muslim Middle East without any compensation or restitution.

More settlement construction on the West Bank? Most of the settlers live in areas which will be retained by Israel as part of a land swap agreement providing for a new Palestinian state. Moreover, as acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, Israeli settlements comprise only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484).

What other just and durable choice does Netanyahu have other than to agree to terms demanded by Obama with the unequivocal backing of The New York Times? The answer is simple: Without ironclad guarantees of no future terror attacks emanating from the West Bank, Israel is simply better off biding its time. Moreover, such guarantees begin with Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

By the way, from the text of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, (Palestine Partition Plan), November 29, 1947, which created Israel (my emphasis in red):

"PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE


1.The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

2.The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

3.Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

4.The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period."

Long-Range Iranian Rockets Seized En Route to Gaza: Another Message of Love From a "Moderate" Rouhani

Today, the Israeli navy intercepted, near Port Sudan on the Red Sea, Syrian-made M-302 long-range rockets being shipped by Iran to Gaza :



On Sunday, Iran executed another two gay men for "perversion" in Rashi (see: http://freebeacon.com/iran-executes-two-for-perversion/).

Meanwhile, the Western press persists in labeling Iranian president Rouhani as a "moderate" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/02/nbc-news-irans-ayatollah-nuclear-talks.html).