Los Angleles Times, "U.S. stockpiles powerful bunker-buster bombs in case Iran nuclear talks fail": A Warning to Iran

As the new deadline of July 7 nears, it is apparent that talks between the P5+1 and Iran are less than lovey-dovey. In a Los Angeles Times article entitled "U.S. stockpiles powerful bunker-buster bombs in case Iran nuclear talks fail," W.J. Hennigan writes:

"U.S. officials have publicized the new [bunker-busting] bomb partly to rattle the Iranians. Some Pentagon officials warned not to underestimate U.S. military capabilities even if the bunker-busters can't eliminate Iran's nuclear program.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested at the same Pentagon news conference Thursday that airstrikes might be ordered multiple times if Iran tries to build a bomb."

Odd! Why the need for this veiled threat? What more can Obama concede to Khamenei? As Charles Krauthammer writes in a powerful, widely circulated Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history":

"In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalized 'successful regional power,' Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling — the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting — under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.

Then, instead of welcoming Congress’ attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.

It’s been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal."

Obama was given Krauthammer's essay to read, and it obviously has him worried, given that the deal with Iran - which will be signed (or "agreed to" without signatures) - must be submitted for Congressional approval. Obama is headed for stormy battles in the House and the Senate, and he might well be forced to veto a Congressional resolution of disapproval, something that the first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office is not keen on doing.