The Iran Deal and how it relates to Ukraine and to the Middle East in general:
Comments
“It doesn’t make sense” — 12 Comments
Apparently it makes perfect sense, to the left.
Accomodation and appeasement for the “kumbaya” crowd.
Effectively reduces American influence around the world.
Besides, nuclear war is an impossibility, something no sane person could seriously contemplate. Demonstrated by 35% of democrats being willing to dare Russia to start a nuclear war.
“….[the new Iran deal was] not even a blip on the radar…”
In that case, someone wasn’t paying attention.
Should have been crystal clear from the moment “Biden” was “elected” that this was coming down the pike. That it was a top priority.
(In fact this “not even a blip on the radar” was just another reason why the 2020 election had to be stolen. One of many reasons, to be sure….)
It is a mystery to me what the Biden regime foreign policy is. The “Iran Deal” is obviously not in our interest. Biden already has found one consequence when he tried to get the Saudis to increase oil production. What could he have expected ? Who in the world is advising/instructing him ? It not beyond the reach of speculation that the country is now in the hands of its enemies. Every policy that I have seen is destructive. Why ?
Mike, I would think that the goal of the “Biden” administration is to create as many crises as possible (while denying they ARE crises and/or opportunistically blaming others for them—e.g., Trump, Putin, et al.).
Why are they doing this?
It is through this policy of destruction, confusion, doubt, despair and uncertainty that they hope to achieve two major goals (in a nutshell):
– Cement total power.
– Fundamentally transform (IOW destroy, as you mentioned above) the USA as we know it, i.e., weaken the morale of its citizenry and remove its resolve, weaken its institutions, weaken its military, weaken it financially, economically, morally and remove/neutralize any serious/vigorous opposition so that those in total control of the country (read, the Democrats) can refashion it according to their “more perfect” Orwellian vision: an authoritarian, socialist “paradise”, which gives the people “WHAT THEY NEED” (more correctly, “what the leadership decides they need”) as long as those people “OBEY THE RULES”, which includes think the way you’re SUPPOSED TO and speak the way you’re SUPPOSED TO, with no exceptions. The end result: just another neutered European-style political entity/flock. Or if you wish, Canada (which itself is undergoing the same kind of “transformation” led by an identical leadership cohort—that should be “leadership”, since the whole thing is being coordinated by the Schwabbist criminal syndicate.)
IOW destroy all sense of hope and purpose, except survival.
Or to put it another way, to transform the “pursuit of happiness”—that pinnacle of American social genius—to meaning “sheer survival” (or better than that, perhaps, IF one dances to the leadership’s tune. Perhaps.)
Once again, in a nutshell…
– – – – – – – –
BTW, as a doctor, what do you think of this most unpleasant assessment of American, and presumably other countries’, healthcare system?
“How Healthcare Became Sickcare”— https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/how-healthcare-became-sickcare
what do you think of this most unpleasant assessment of American, and presumably other countries’, healthcare system?
I pretty much agree with it. Notice the administrator curve after 1990. In 1986, Medicare switched to something called “The Resource based Relative Value scale.” This was supposed to correct for high cost areas and keep doctor payments as low as possible. It was aimed at specialists, like surgeons. I was still active in Organized Medicine at the time and an internist friend told me “We will driving Mercedes and surgeons will be driving Chevrolets!” It didn’t turn out that way. The AMA and Harvard screwed everybody equally.
Then came Obamacare, which turned medicine into an industrial model. One way it was done was that all doctors had to use “Electronic medical records” systems which were very expensive and clumsy to use. These systems harvested lots of data and used doctors as file clerks typing forms. After years of using them most doctors estimate that it takes 25% of their time. Quite a few my age retired or dropped Medicare and insurance for cash models. That would cut their overhead by 75% or more and they could have fun again. These were almost all docs with no debts, student or otherwise.
Back before Obamacare, I studied alternate systems and decided the best reform we could adopt was to use the French System. I have a series of blog posts on my own blog about it. Here is a link to them. Chicagoboyz also has a link.
Caroline Glick speaks with Gabriel Noronha at length on the JCPOA2.0 and the objections of DoS insiders he has revealed recently. “What’s in the deal?”, is the question to hand.
Yes, that “administrator curve” diagram is outrageous. (It even looks too awful to be accurate… i.e., the product of the deranged imagination of some pundit prone to hyperbole…)
Since this article also describes the intimate, collusional relationship between “Biden” and Putin, it is a MUST read for BOTH sides of the Ukraine argument.
IOW, the collusion between “Biden” and Putin is vast: simply put, they are using one another to achieve their respective goals…with “Biden” being the needier of the two because of “his” need to CONCEAL “his” sinister ambitions from the American people, from Congress and from “his” so-called “allies”.
More specifically, “Biden” MUST compensate Putin because the latter is enabling “Biden”‘s goals in Iran and the larger Middle East.
This should put to rest any confusion regarding the blatantly contradictory manner in which “Biden” has responded to the Ukraine, um, “unpleasantness” (“contradictory” because of the disconnect between rhetoric and action); it likewise explains the jingoism of the Mainstream Corrupt Media (which due to “Biden”‘s dilatory posturing HAS TO “pick up the slack” as well as obscure “Biden”‘s dilatoriness and reasons for it); and may even lead to a rapprochement (of sorts) between the two seemingly unbridgeable positions of Russia as 1) victim of NATO, as it were, and 2) as gangster state with reactionary (i.e., Tsarist or neo-Soviet) imperial ambitions…the BRIDGE here being “Biden”‘s own monstrously ambitious—or, if you will, fundamentally transformational—policies and “his” need to achieve them on the one hand while CONCEALING, on the other, the “AUDACIOUS” strategy (IOW brutal betrayals) leading to their achievement.
(BTW, for the one or two people who haven’t yet figured it out…”Biden” is OBAMA.)
“Team Biden Runs the Syria Playbook on Ukraine”— https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/team-biden-runs-syria-playbook-ukraine
Key grafs (the last several paragraphs in the article, but RTWT):
‘…As was the case in Syria, all the [American] moral outrage about the horrors of Russia bombing [Ukrainian] civilian neighborhoods is just the lead in to the Iran deal. The American horror at Putin’s aggression, in other words, is not merely performative, but functional—all the more so after the instrumentalization of Vladimir Putin in domestic American politics since 2016.
‘For the Biden administration, unlike for Obama, there are necessarily two Putins. There’s Vladimir Putin, the realist head of state. He’s a stone-cold killer, to be sure, but he gets the job done in rough spots like Syria, where he helped keep America out of another Middle Eastern war while holding in check the U.S. allies and their domestic neocon lobbyists who wanted to drag us into that conflict and spoil the Iran deal. He’s a thug, yes. But it takes a thug to ruthlessly pound Islamist terrorists like ISIS and keep the Israeli Air Force grounded.
‘Then there’s “Putin,” the devious monster who hacked our elections to install a puppet in the White House in an all-out assault on American democracy that even some Republicans deplore. Clearly, no compromise is possible with that kind of hell spawn. But if Putin was instrumental in neutralizing pesky U.S. allies of old with his entry into Syria while Obama conducted the real business with Iran, “Putin” is equally useful toward the same end: browbeating U.S. allies put in danger by the Iran realignment into keeping their mouths shut while the 2.0 deal is sealed.
‘Sure enough, the administration has weaponized moral outrage over “Putin” in a messaging campaign against the Gulf Arab states and Israel. How can these countries be real U.S. allies when they don’t denounce “Putin”? While it’s perhaps unsurprising that the Gulf Arab states side with the authoritarian “Putin,” underscoring their incompatibility with American values, how can Israel call itself a democracy while it enables “Putin”? Like “the Palestinians” and “settlements,” “Putin” is a cudgel masquerading as a principled American stand on values that is meant to keep a downgraded Israel preoccupied and on the defensive as the administration gives nuclear weapons capacity to its enemy. If, with its faux outrage over “Putin,” the Obama-Biden crew manages to trip the Israelis into crossing a line with the actual Vladimir Putin, whom Obama helped install on Israel’s northern border, thereby complicating Israel’s ability to operate against Iran, then all the better.
‘That is to say, the [Biden] administration’s moral outrage really isn’t about Ukraine at all. It’s another tool in the service of its deal with Iran. Which is the common thread between the timing of Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, and the U.S. reaction to it. It’s all pegged to the realignment. That’s the lesson of the Syria playbook.’
Oops: “positions” should be “views”
Related (to our Alice-In-Wonderland reality):
“Amid global energy crunch, Biden on track to boost Iranian oil, impede Israeli gas exports to Europe;
“Decision to engage Iran on supplying energy while obstructing Eastern Mediterranean allies’ pipeline deal feeds concerns among experts that administration rewards foes, punishes friends in the Middle East”— https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/amid-global-energy-crisis-biden-looks-iran-not-israel
Except that they’ve got it all wrong:
“…feeds concerns among experts that [Biden] administration rewards foes, punishes friends in the Middle East” is NOT what “Biden” is doing.
To the contrary, “Biden” is precisely rewarding friends (i.e., Iran) and punishing foes (i.e., Israel).
Apparently it makes perfect sense, to the left.
Accomodation and appeasement for the “kumbaya” crowd.
Effectively reduces American influence around the world.
Besides, nuclear war is an impossibility, something no sane person could seriously contemplate. Demonstrated by 35% of democrats being willing to dare Russia to start a nuclear war.
“….[the new Iran deal was] not even a blip on the radar…”
In that case, someone wasn’t paying attention.
Should have been crystal clear from the moment “Biden” was “elected” that this was coming down the pike. That it was a top priority.
(In fact this “not even a blip on the radar” was just another reason why the 2020 election had to be stolen. One of many reasons, to be sure….)
“It doesn’t make sense….”
Except that it makes perfect sense…
https://www.jns.org/opinion/an-envoy-from-a-failed-past-points-towards-a-problematic-future/
It is a mystery to me what the Biden regime foreign policy is. The “Iran Deal” is obviously not in our interest. Biden already has found one consequence when he tried to get the Saudis to increase oil production. What could he have expected ? Who in the world is advising/instructing him ? It not beyond the reach of speculation that the country is now in the hands of its enemies. Every policy that I have seen is destructive. Why ?
Mike, I would think that the goal of the “Biden” administration is to create as many crises as possible (while denying they ARE crises and/or opportunistically blaming others for them—e.g., Trump, Putin, et al.).
Why are they doing this?
It is through this policy of destruction, confusion, doubt, despair and uncertainty that they hope to achieve two major goals (in a nutshell):
– Cement total power.
– Fundamentally transform (IOW destroy, as you mentioned above) the USA as we know it, i.e., weaken the morale of its citizenry and remove its resolve, weaken its institutions, weaken its military, weaken it financially, economically, morally and remove/neutralize any serious/vigorous opposition so that those in total control of the country (read, the Democrats) can refashion it according to their “more perfect” Orwellian vision: an authoritarian, socialist “paradise”, which gives the people “WHAT THEY NEED” (more correctly, “what the leadership decides they need”) as long as those people “OBEY THE RULES”, which includes think the way you’re SUPPOSED TO and speak the way you’re SUPPOSED TO, with no exceptions. The end result: just another neutered European-style political entity/flock. Or if you wish, Canada (which itself is undergoing the same kind of “transformation” led by an identical leadership cohort—that should be “leadership”, since the whole thing is being coordinated by the Schwabbist criminal syndicate.)
IOW destroy all sense of hope and purpose, except survival.
Or to put it another way, to transform the “pursuit of happiness”—that pinnacle of American social genius—to meaning “sheer survival” (or better than that, perhaps, IF one dances to the leadership’s tune. Perhaps.)
Once again, in a nutshell…
– – – – – – – –
BTW, as a doctor, what do you think of this most unpleasant assessment of American, and presumably other countries’, healthcare system?
“How Healthcare Became Sickcare”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/how-healthcare-became-sickcare
what do you think of this most unpleasant assessment of American, and presumably other countries’, healthcare system?
I pretty much agree with it. Notice the administrator curve after 1990. In 1986, Medicare switched to something called “The Resource based Relative Value scale.” This was supposed to correct for high cost areas and keep doctor payments as low as possible. It was aimed at specialists, like surgeons. I was still active in Organized Medicine at the time and an internist friend told me “We will driving Mercedes and surgeons will be driving Chevrolets!” It didn’t turn out that way. The AMA and Harvard screwed everybody equally.
Then came Obamacare, which turned medicine into an industrial model. One way it was done was that all doctors had to use “Electronic medical records” systems which were very expensive and clumsy to use. These systems harvested lots of data and used doctors as file clerks typing forms. After years of using them most doctors estimate that it takes 25% of their time. Quite a few my age retired or dropped Medicare and insurance for cash models. That would cut their overhead by 75% or more and they could have fun again. These were almost all docs with no debts, student or otherwise.
Back before Obamacare, I studied alternate systems and decided the best reform we could adopt was to use the French System. I have a series of blog posts on my own blog about it. Here is a link to them. Chicagoboyz also has a link.
Caroline Glick speaks with Gabriel Noronha at length on the JCPOA2.0 and the objections of DoS insiders he has revealed recently. “What’s in the deal?”, is the question to hand.
https://youtu.be/uQcyF8r6L6Q
Yes, that “administrator curve” diagram is outrageous. (It even looks too awful to be accurate… i.e., the product of the deranged imagination of some pundit prone to hyperbole…)
Thanks much for the link.
Anybody who continues to maintain that “Biden”‘s Iran “deal” does NOT make sense should read the following article by Tony Badran—linked to several days ago by Magnus: https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/03/18/i-decided-to-try/#comment-2613848—in order to understand EXACTLY what’s going on.
Since this article also describes the intimate, collusional relationship between “Biden” and Putin, it is a MUST read for BOTH sides of the Ukraine argument.
IOW, the collusion between “Biden” and Putin is vast: simply put, they are using one another to achieve their respective goals…with “Biden” being the needier of the two because of “his” need to CONCEAL “his” sinister ambitions from the American people, from Congress and from “his” so-called “allies”.
More specifically, “Biden” MUST compensate Putin because the latter is enabling “Biden”‘s goals in Iran and the larger Middle East.
This should put to rest any confusion regarding the blatantly contradictory manner in which “Biden” has responded to the Ukraine, um, “unpleasantness” (“contradictory” because of the disconnect between rhetoric and action); it likewise explains the jingoism of the Mainstream Corrupt Media (which due to “Biden”‘s dilatory posturing HAS TO “pick up the slack” as well as obscure “Biden”‘s dilatoriness and reasons for it); and may even lead to a rapprochement (of sorts) between the two seemingly unbridgeable positions of Russia as 1) victim of NATO, as it were, and 2) as gangster state with reactionary (i.e., Tsarist or neo-Soviet) imperial ambitions…the BRIDGE here being “Biden”‘s own monstrously ambitious—or, if you will, fundamentally transformational—policies and “his” need to achieve them on the one hand while CONCEALING, on the other, the “AUDACIOUS” strategy (IOW brutal betrayals) leading to their achievement.
(BTW, for the one or two people who haven’t yet figured it out…”Biden” is OBAMA.)
“Team Biden Runs the Syria Playbook on Ukraine”—
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/team-biden-runs-syria-playbook-ukraine
Key grafs (the last several paragraphs in the article, but RTWT):
‘…As was the case in Syria, all the [American] moral outrage about the horrors of Russia bombing [Ukrainian] civilian neighborhoods is just the lead in to the Iran deal. The American horror at Putin’s aggression, in other words, is not merely performative, but functional—all the more so after the instrumentalization of Vladimir Putin in domestic American politics since 2016.
‘For the Biden administration, unlike for Obama, there are necessarily two Putins. There’s Vladimir Putin, the realist head of state. He’s a stone-cold killer, to be sure, but he gets the job done in rough spots like Syria, where he helped keep America out of another Middle Eastern war while holding in check the U.S. allies and their domestic neocon lobbyists who wanted to drag us into that conflict and spoil the Iran deal. He’s a thug, yes. But it takes a thug to ruthlessly pound Islamist terrorists like ISIS and keep the Israeli Air Force grounded.
‘Then there’s “Putin,” the devious monster who hacked our elections to install a puppet in the White House in an all-out assault on American democracy that even some Republicans deplore. Clearly, no compromise is possible with that kind of hell spawn. But if Putin was instrumental in neutralizing pesky U.S. allies of old with his entry into Syria while Obama conducted the real business with Iran, “Putin” is equally useful toward the same end: browbeating U.S. allies put in danger by the Iran realignment into keeping their mouths shut while the 2.0 deal is sealed.
‘Sure enough, the administration has weaponized moral outrage over “Putin” in a messaging campaign against the Gulf Arab states and Israel. How can these countries be real U.S. allies when they don’t denounce “Putin”? While it’s perhaps unsurprising that the Gulf Arab states side with the authoritarian “Putin,” underscoring their incompatibility with American values, how can Israel call itself a democracy while it enables “Putin”? Like “the Palestinians” and “settlements,” “Putin” is a cudgel masquerading as a principled American stand on values that is meant to keep a downgraded Israel preoccupied and on the defensive as the administration gives nuclear weapons capacity to its enemy. If, with its faux outrage over “Putin,” the Obama-Biden crew manages to trip the Israelis into crossing a line with the actual Vladimir Putin, whom Obama helped install on Israel’s northern border, thereby complicating Israel’s ability to operate against Iran, then all the better.
‘That is to say, the [Biden] administration’s moral outrage really isn’t about Ukraine at all. It’s another tool in the service of its deal with Iran. Which is the common thread between the timing of Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, and the U.S. reaction to it. It’s all pegged to the realignment. That’s the lesson of the Syria playbook.’
Oops: “positions” should be “views”
Related (to our Alice-In-Wonderland reality):
“Amid global energy crunch, Biden on track to boost Iranian oil, impede Israeli gas exports to Europe;
“Decision to engage Iran on supplying energy while obstructing Eastern Mediterranean allies’ pipeline deal feeds concerns among experts that administration rewards foes, punishes friends in the Middle East”—
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/amid-global-energy-crisis-biden-looks-iran-not-israel
Except that they’ve got it all wrong:
“…feeds concerns among experts that [Biden] administration rewards foes, punishes friends in the Middle East” is NOT what “Biden” is doing.
To the contrary, “Biden” is precisely rewarding friends (i.e., Iran) and punishing foes (i.e., Israel).
(As in, “The times, they are a’ changin'”)
“Experts”, heh. When will they EVER learn????
Mike Doran, substack: “Nuclear Deal Smokescreens”
https://michaeldoran.substack.com/p/nuclear-deal-smokescreens?s=r&utm_medium=web