Iran talks get nowhere
Of all the news that’s come out today—and there’s plenty of it—this just may be the most important, even though it’s couched as non-news:
The deadline for reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear program expires today without the parties having reached a negotiated agreement. The negotiating period will be extended until July 1 of next year.
This development is being reported as “no deal,” but there actually is a deal of sorts here. According to the British foreign secretary, Iran will receive about $700 million per month in frozen assets. In exchange, it makes no concessions. Instead, the status quo is maintained with regard to Iran’s nuclear program.
In all likelihood, then, Iran’s economy will continue to expand. No longer will it experience the severe bite that caused it to come to the negotiating table. Thus, Iran will have even less incentive to make concessions than it has had in the run-up to the current stalemate.
Meanwhile, Obama will feel pressure to make additional concessions. Clearly, he wants a deal; otherwise he would have walked away in the face of Iran’s intransigence…
Obama’s desperation has already driven him to make a series of concessions. Lee Smith catalogues them.
Among the concessions are these:
1. Obama has offered Iran a 10-year sunset period. After 10 years, any deal would be void.
2. Obama has given up on its demands that Iran enrich no uranium at all.
3. Obama has abandoned the demand that Iran must dismantle its centrifuges.
According to Smith, there are also reports that Obama may have given up on demanding that Iran fully disclose its past activities, including possible military dimensions of the nuclear program.
Obama’s attitude towards Iran is craven, obsequious, and against the interests of the US. Exactly how this will end I do not know, but I strongly believe (and fear) that it is likely to be bad, perhaps on a major level.
One thing that seems clear to me, however, is that the Israeli leadership realizes that Obama is the enemy, and cannot be trusted in any way to help them. In fact, he may be actively harming them. Therefore they can expect nothing but trouble and double-dealing from him. They are on their own in regard to Iran, and must act accordingly.
No one, friend or foe, respects, let alone fears dear leader.
Iranians are chess players.
Mossad ?
Interestingly, from one perspective President Obama is showing a surprising consistency.
He is showing willingness to make the same sort of concessions to the Iranians, that he expects Israel to make to Hamas et al.
In neither case does he seem to understand just how dangerous this is.
In this case failure is a very good thing, unless, of course, it makes Obama and Kerry even more frantic to make a deal, enough so that they will go for an even worse deal just to get some deal, any deal.
It’s very likely that the talks will be ‘extended’… until Iran gets the bomb, which is the real purpose of the talks. The ‘attempt’ to reach a ‘deal’ with Iran over its nuclear program is a dog and pony show for the useful idiots, a way to forestall Israeli action (regardless of how ineffective they would be) and provide political cover for Obama against criticism that he must do ‘something’..
But in reality, Israel cannot “act accordingly”. It lacks the conventional military resources needed to conduct an effective air campaign against Iran. All they can do is slow Iran down a bit but if they hit Iran, Obama will scream that the Israeli’s didn’t ‘give peace a chance’ and as long as politically possible, he’ll end most or even all military and economic aid to Israel.
While a nuclear preemptive first strike is a political ‘non-starter’. It would also provide Obama with the perfect rationale, (an Israel gone rogue) to cut off all US support for Israel, including American support in the UN. Obama would then be very likely to support an international economic embargo of Israel, while demanding a new ‘compliant’ (leftist) government.
The soon to depart SecDef Hagel inadvertently revealed during his Senate confirmation hearings that Obama’s strategy for dealing with Iran is one of future ‘containment’. Even were that possible, it would not address the foremost danger from a nuclear Iran, which is nuclear proliferation into unstable third world regimes and jihadist States.
Most damning of all, Obama knows that containment won’t work. Even Kerry is on record as understanding that once Iran gets nukes, the consequence will be nuclear proliferation. And if Kerry knows, it’s a ‘lead-pipe cinch’ that Obama knows.
“the region will be far less stable and far more threatened if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon. It will spur a nuclear arms race. It has risks for greater terrorism. It will be destabilizing. ” Kerry said the threat extends beyond the possibility that Iran could actually use the weapon on its enemies, specifically Israel. Iran simply having a nuclear weapon would “spur a nuclear arms race” in the region and could be used to support terrorists groups like Hezbollah, he said.” Interview with SecState John Kerry – March 5, 2013
Once nukes spread into the region it’s just a matter of time till terrorists get their hands on some. Putting one in a shipping container on board a commercial cargo vessel bound for one of our harbors will be child’s play. 12 of our 20 largest cities are port cities.
The reaction to a nuke terrorist attack will be panic, chaos and bi-partisan calls for protection, which will be all the excuse needed to declare nationwide martial law. Only those in denial can fail to see the ‘opportunity’ such a crisis would present Obama or a future democrat President Hillary or Warren.
Indeed, this entire charade must be viewed together within the the context of the “Bibi is a chickens**t” remark reportedly made by that Obama staffer and evidently countenanced by Obama (simply because he refused to deny it or discipline the staffer).
The context being the triumphalist claim (made by said staffer) that the Obama administration deceived Bibi into believing that the US would prevent or at least strongly derail Iran’s march to achieving nuclear weapons cabability; and that, because of that understanding, Bibi held back.
And now, it’s too late for him to do anything (so the claim implies) about it.
Sucker! Chickens**t!!
In other words: “Na, na, na, na, na—-we fooled you and there ain’t nuthin’ you can do now, chump!!”
Charming, indeed….
Clearly, what Obama did to Israel he can do again to others. In fact, there’s no reason at this point to believe why he wouldn’t do it to that other country he despises: the USA.
Perhaps the single most important news of the day/months…
Observing the negotiating style of John Kerry on this matter has reminded me of a girl I knew in Junior High School.
‘Nuff said…
“One thing that seems clear to me, however, is that the Israeli leadership realizes that Obama is the enemy, and cannot be trusted in any way to help them.”
Well stated. Unfortunately, Obama is fully supported by a majority of leading Democrats in his perfidy. That is the tragedy. Whether he is dissing Israel or shredding the constitution, Obama is not an outlier, he is in the mainstream of his party.
Nowhere? How long…
They are most definitely somewhere, that is, the exact place Obama wants them to be.
You call it nowhere. He knows that it is at Point X, which is a step closer and a day sooner to a nuclear armed Iran. This is what he wants. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely delusional.
The “chickens” are in the House. They’re worried that they might be unpopular if they brought impeachment proceedings, while Obama is shredding the Constitution and pushing the world into Armageddon. They’re like Keystone Kops arguing about writing a ticket for double-parking while the driver is robbing the bank.
It takes 67 votes to convict an impeached president, so impeachment is a waste of time. When the new congress convenes we will see if it has the spine for using the purse strings and flooding dear leader’s desk with bills that are needed, such as curtailing the flood of epa regulations, and making team obama the party of no.
“When the new congress convenes we will see if it has the spine for using the purse strings and flooding dear leader’s desk with bills that are needed” parker
We already know and the confirmation is Rep. Bachmann’s revelation that in the weekly meeting called the “Republican Conference”, the Republican leadership stated that it has no intention of resisting President Obama’s executive amnesty.
“They acted as though the amnesty issue wasn’t even an issue. They said that the President is going to do what he’s going to do, and we are not going to get down in the mud with him. We are not going to engage, and what we are going to do is to talk about our positive solutions on jobs, the economy, education, and manufacturing,” Bachmann said.
She added that each congressman who spoke reiterated that not engaging Obama and staying positive was a “brilliant strategy.”
“While the country is talking about amnesty, and the president is taking unconstitutional actions, our leadership wants to change the subject and not engage,”
There you go, if they will not act against this, there is no national domestic issue upon which they will act.
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” Abraham Lincoln
I believe that the Obama objective is that Iran get the bomb and take the title of the piece “Iran Talks Get Nowhere” as containing a bit of sarcasm. The objective gets closer every day. The idea that the great threat to peace is a powerful U.S. and that a nuclear Iran is better able to balance the threat is held by Obama and quite a few on the far left who realize it may be tactically smarter not to be so forthright about that point nowadays. Hypocrisy note: One of the reasons that Obama gives for sustaining the talks is that Iran will use the nuclear research for peaceful energy purposes. Obama would fiercely oppose any nuclear power development here.
So with all of the things that Obama has apparently conceded… is there anything that we’re actually trying to ask the Iranians to do?
junior,
I’m sure they’ve quietly and covertly asked the Ayatollah to tone down the rhetoric about the “Great Satan”… as it’s ‘unhelpful’.
It must be a great source of frustration to Obama that the Iranians keep talking out of turn, while the administration is doing all it can to assist the Iranians. The ingrates!
In the face of zero progress, Kerry just argued that we should drop all sanctions against Iran, since the sanctions have already brought the Iranians to the negotiation table, which according to Kerry was all that the sanctions were ever meant to do. He also wants to…. surprise! extend the ‘negotiations’… and the dog and pony show goes on.
GB,
I will wait to see what happens in the first 100 days of the new congress before I pass final judgment on the gop. If there is no substantial effort to stymie team obama I will stop hoping there is any real opposition to the agenda of the left. Instead I will triple down on my 20 year effort to prepare my family for ‘the long march’. My siblings and I will discuss how to fund building an additional cabin on our 3 acre lake front property in northern Minnesota during a 4 day Thanksgiving family gathering. The long, cold winters have one benefit…. very few people want to live there year round.
Parker:
If what Obama has done and is doing are insufficient grounds for bringing impeachment proceedings in the House, what, pray tell, would it take? If the proceedings are brought, they will not be brought on something as insignificant as a sexual dalliance, or even, lying under oath about it.
I think charges could be brought on the grounds of his failure to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and his failure to secure the borders. Perhaps also, his failure to support and defend the Constitution. Such charges would generate a weighty and serious debate on the floor of the House, hopefully it would be well argued. Granted, the proceedings would be beyond the comprehension of many of our citizens (they know who they are). At the conclusion, the House would vote in favor of some or all of the charges.
The public would be polled incessantly as the proceedings took place. Further, Obama would react in some unpredictable manner, possibly harming his case. After all, criticism is one thing a narcissist cannot bear.
You’re sure that after all that, there would not be twelve Democrats who would vote to convict. Maybe not, but I prefer to think that there are Democrats who realize that Obama has grievously harmed their party and the nation.
But in any case, Obama, like Clinton, would be impeached. That would forever be his legacy.
“So with all of the things that Obama has apparently conceded… is there anything that we’re actually trying to ask the Iranians to do?”
Bomb Republicans.
The New York Times, November 1st 2016:
“Today President Obama announced the finalization of a nuclear agreement with Iran- an effort that has spanned the last 3 years of Mr. Obama’s presidency. Iran agreed to scrap its uranium enrichment program in return for 20 nuclear warheads and the delivery systems…….”
From President Clinton’s address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, 17FEB98:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
CapnRusty,
I am not saying dear leader does not deserve to be impeached, but if we know without a shadow of doubt that there are not 67 votes in the senate to convict, what purpose is served by impeachment in the house?
I´m gonna make a prediction about how this is gonna end.
Iran has no nukes yet. But he can get them in 3-4 months. He could get them now, though it´s more clever to wait. In the meanwhile, uranium enrichment continues increasing the stock.
When Iral will start to build the nukes? About 5-6 months before Obama leaves the White House. Why?
– They need to have the nukes when the new US president arrives, so any militar operation would become a nuclear war.
– Obama won´t dare to start an invasion a few months before leaving.
– Until then, Obama is gonna do nothing to stop Iran from uranium enrichment. Everybody knows it, included Iran and Obama.
So here is my prediction: nukes will start to be made in Iran in spring 2016. Obama will do nothing to stop it. The new US president will enter with a nuclear powered Iran. And once Iran is nuclear, any militar operation there will risk to start 3rd World War.
Our only hope is that Israel stops it before its too late. But Israel will be completely alone with it, no US collaboration (neither EU, of course) to stop Iran. And UN heavily opposing it, since current UN is closer to terrorism than to the countries that fight it.
I too, wonder what Israel’s plan is. Given that a fair number of that population are Americans, many who came from places like New York and Chicago, and have no illusions what an Obama in the Presidency means, they must have started to make some moves. I know that their government is compromised as is ours, but certainly some within are taking the latest, greatest threat of annihilation seriously.
The Iran talks were never going to go anywhere. I am cynical enough to think Obama likes the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon to counter ‘imperialist’ and ‘evil’ countries like Israel and the United States. It’s sobering to think that the mighty US has to rely once again on little Israel to maybe save the world from disaster. I just hope it can.
This is but a part of his jihad against the West —
with Jerusalem manning the point,
staked out like Uriah,
with jihadist Barry
“If you want my backing, you can keep my backing” —
backing away.
History may not repeat,
but it rhymes.
&&&
B.S. is kneeling for the day that Tehran will take down Jerusalem.
At some point, look for either a ‘head bump'(*) … or public bong hits.
(*) Devout jihadis hit the floor so often and hard that they’re left with temple calluses.