An Iran deal edges closer
There have been no special announcements today regarding the Iran talks, at least as I type these words. But there are such deeply ominous rumblings that I feel I must start a new thread, because reports since yesterday are that an Iran deal is nigh.
David Gerstman has a post about it at Legal Insurrection entitled “Awaiting historic sellout of Israel by Obama-Kerry.” Yesterday at Powerline, Scott Johnson introduced his post on the matter this way:
As we reach the round number of 10 in this series of email reports by Omri Ceren from Vienna, we approach the catastrophic conclusion that has been implicit from the beginning…
I want to pause for a moment to admire the succinctness of that phrase, “the catastrophic conclusion that has been implicit from the beginning.” That says a lot, not just about the nuclear talks with Iran but about so many things that have happened during the Obama administration—from the first faroff rumblings of trouble, to the slow steady approach, to the fights between those who would support and those who would oppose—with the latter every now and then thinking that maybe, just maybe, the attempt to prevent whatever dreadful thing the left was pushing this time would somehow prevail.
Sometimes the efforts did prevent it (remember card check?), but far more often they did not. And even when the opposition did manage to block a plan of Obama and his supporters, he often would accomplish his goals anyway through some other method, usually involving executive action or secret sabotage (IRS investigations of Tea Party groups, for example).
So here we sit, waiting. When will the announcement come? And what will the details involve? No reports—even from those who support Obama—mention the sort of things one would want to see in any deal, so there is no reason whatsoever to imagine they will be there.
Scott Johnson of Powerline has been on the case for quite some time, and you would do well to read two pieces he wrote today, this and this. From the latter:
Like the Munich Agreement, this deal is a disgrace, but it is worse. We don’t have the excuse of a lost generation that persuaded the British to avert their eyes from the grim necessity to confront Hitler’s evil intentions. We have no such excuse and we understand Iran’s evil intentions. Indeed, they may be harder to miss than Hitler’s…
The deal will finance Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and other terrorist activities. Despite the vacuous talk of a ten- or fifteen-year period of protection, the deal will leave Iran free to take the money and run. It therefore facilitates Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Iran will become a nuclear power with our assistance…The deal in process must be the worst agreement in history; it is certainly the worst agreement in American history.
I agree with almost everything in that quote. Unfortunately. And I hope we’re wrong about the dire consequences, both to America and the world.
I wrote “almost everything.” With what do I disagree? This: “We don’t have the excuse of a lost generation…” He is correct that we don’t have the same type of lost generation. We are not recovering from World War I. But our younger generation is lost in a different way. It was voters under 30 who voted for Obama in such high numbers that they made the difference in the 2012 election. Those are the voters who have been most deeply marinated in the leftist educational system, and it has rendered them “lost” in a way that may have irrevocably changed this country and the world.
If all liberal Borg had even an inkling of how evil the Iranian government is they might, though doubtful, wake up. The mullahs hang women for adultery, kill homosexuals, and most evil of all used small boys as human mine sweepers. http://all-that-is-interesting.com/iranian-child-soldiers-iran-iraq-war
On what planet will the mullahs abide by any agreement whatsoever? How delusional are Kerry and Obama, which is granting a lot in Obama’s case where malevolant if not down right evil is closer to the truth at this point.
I was just about to say the same thing, neoneocon. The WWII generation was lost from fear, we’re lost from complacency.
There’s gonna have to be a lot of dead people before Democrats admit they were horribly wrong.
Maybe if we’re lucky, the Saudis and Iranians will only nuke each other.
A deal with Iran. Expand wars, regime change, and dislocation in other Muslim nations. I wonder why Iran enjoys most favored status.
A lot of people bought into the various anti war propaganda that Bush’s operations would fail, merely because someone else said something negative about it.
But as we can see, negative PR or loss of support, doesn’t really bother an Executive. That Executive merely has to bypass limits on their power.
People saw Bush getting into trouble only because Bush agreed on his own limiters.
Hussein, however, has no limiters, and people see how little their criticism and public opinion really counts for in the real world.
Let’s man up and stop mincing words. The Obama Administration is EVIL. It is not deluded or stupid.
Who started these “negotiations”? and why? That the “talks” have dragged out is merely Gramscian incrementalism. That Corker and the Senate GOP have basically endorsed the process is a profound sign of moral and constitutional depravity. It will take only 34 Senate votes to block “disapproval.”
What is in it for Obama, Kerry and their henchpeople? The Koskinens, Johnsons, Holders, Lynchs, Lerners? If you don’t know, you do not understand how things work, even as you have the obvious example of Hillary before you.
The spirit of appeasement in the late 1930s was indeed partly motivated by fear of a WWI repeat, but it was also partly motivated by a feeling of broad societal guilt which was interestingly parallel to our present-day political correctness. C S Lewis wrote about this eloquently, in 1940, an an article which I excerpted here:
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_archive.html#90746525
Thanks for the C. S. Lewis article. It seems we’re dealing with an age-old tendency. Or, as Gilbert and Sullivan had it in The Mikado:
“Or the idiot who praises in enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own,
He never will be missed!
He surely won’t be missed!”
One thing would be added on Who started these “negotiations”? and why?
With Iraq WMD UN was the main front to talk the tyrant regime, with Iran Mullah regime the see and thier propaganda inside use five+1 face to face talk as some sort of winng for the regime despite what the outcome from the talk.
It seems that Iran has been exempted from invasion for two reasons: military power and Russia. America and Europe cannot attack Iran directly, unlike Libya, Syria, Ukraine, even Egypt, where their allies committed mass murder and violent regime changes, as well as gave rise to terrorist organizations (e.g. ISIS), but they need to remove it from Russia’s sphere of influence.
The terrorist associations and the people sacrificed in the wake of Obama’s realignment of African, Asian, and European nations, is analogous to FDR’s setup of Soviet Communists to enter the European theater in order to fight the German Socialists on the Eastern front. FDR effectively gave Stalin carte blanche to trample the Slavic people and hold them captive behind the “iron curtain”. As Obama, today, gives the terrorists and “rebels” flexibility to do the same in Russia’s sphere of influence.
So, why is Russia the target of an American bipartisan consensus and Europeans? And why is it acceptable to sacrifice so many nations and people in order to isolate it?
Rethinking Russia: A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen
huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rethinking-russia-a-conve_b_7744498.html
From the article, Cohen:
Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, “George, we’re with you, whatever we can do,” and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. … Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance.
The Taliban have since been invited back.
If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn’t actually refuse to sign the European Union’s offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal.
Slavic fodder, again?
Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I’m sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive.
I’m thinking of the unilateral bombing of Serbia, followed by the establishment of the Islamic state, Kosovo, in Europe.
Then there are Gaddafi’s weapons left in Libya (e.g. Benghazi). The advanced American weapons left in Iraq (used by terrorists to kill Kurds, Sunni, etc.). The American weapons left in Yemen (perhaps another unannounced regime change). The support of “rebels” and terrorists in Syria to force a regime change, kill Christians, and numerous others.
Finally, similar strategies to wrest control of America. Trump has identified at least two important tactics: illegal immigration and inequitable trade.
n.n engineered collapse